extension_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes the data sources and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', which is appropriate. However, it does not disclose details such as output format, potential for empty results, or whether SW crash logs are cleared after retrieval. For a simple diagnostic getter, this is adequate but slightly under-specified.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys purpose and scope without wasted words. It is highly concise and structured effectively.

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's simple nature (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient to understand what the tool does and from where it pulls data. It doesn't explain the return structure, but for a 'get errors' tool this is reasonably inferred. Some additional detail about what constitutes an 'extension error' could help, but overall it is complete enough.

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 there are no parameter semantics to describe. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gaps.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (extension errors) and sources (chrome://extensions and recent SW crash logs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like console_logs, which target console output rather than extension-level errors.

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 implies when to use the tool (when extension errors or service worker crash logs are needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, despite the presence of related sibling tools like console_logs and network_requests. Context is clear but not fully fleshed out.

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