check_extension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the return value but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. Mention of 'installation instructions' hints at non-modifying behavior, but it could be more transparent about safety and prerequisites.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second details the return information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., the extension must be installed) or error conditions for slightly better completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter info. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here as the description adds no parameter semantics but doesn't need to.

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 clearly and specifically states the tool checks the status of the Scout Chrome extension connection, and lists what it returns (relay server status, connection status, installation instructions). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on browsing and automation tasks.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied that it should be used to verify extension connectivity before other actions, no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided. This is adequate but lacks guidance.

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