chrome_extensions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' and 'installed' imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, prerequisites, or the structure of what is returned. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but not highly detailed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail, fully earning its place in the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool takes zero parameters and is a straightforward listing operation, the description provides enough context for an agent to know when to call it. The only minor gap is that it does not specify what fields or details the returned extension list contains, but this is not critical for a zero-argument introspection tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed, and the description does not attempt to add any, which is appropriate here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('installed Chrome extensions'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_tabs or chrome_windows, which handle different browser aspects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs the set of installed Chrome extensions. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but no sibling tool appears to be a direct alternative, so the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.