chrome_page_load_summary

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

No annotations provided, but the description declares read-only behavior, explains empty result case, and warns about errors for non-Chrome traces. It does not cover potential performance implications but is adequate for a simple read-only tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, exclusions, parameter note, and empty result behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output includes navigation id, URL, and various timings. It clarifies the tool operates on a loaded trace and handles empty results. It could mention the output format more explicitly but is still complete for the use case.

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?

There are no parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Parameters: none'. This adds clarity beyond the schema, which is empty. For a parameterless tool, this is sufficient.

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 states the tool summarizes page navigations with specific metrics like FCP, LCP, DCL, and load timings. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'prefer over hand-joining chrome.page_loads' and to use execute_sql for sub-event timings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (comparing timings, finding slow loads) and when not to (non-Chrome traces, sub-event timings). It also provides an alternative (execute_sql) for sub-event analysis.

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