extension_load

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core behavior (launching the browser) and the return value (extension ID), but lacks details on the side effects, such as whether an existing browser session is affected or whether the loading is persistent. It does not contradict any annotations, but it is minimal.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes the return value, making it highly scannable.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and return value, but for a tool with a significant side effect ('launch the browser') and three parameters, it lacks context about the launch behavior, whether the extension is expected to be unpacked, or how to use the returned ID. The schema fills in parameter details, but the behavioral context is incomplete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Load a Chrome extension') and resource ('a Chrome extension'), with the additional detail of launching the browser and returning an extension ID. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from reload_extension.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manifest_validate or reload_extension. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions.

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