manifest_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that no browser is needed and the parameter description notes fallback to loaded extension, but it doesn't clarify return format or potential side effects. These disclosures add some value but remain incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a key advantage. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. It could mention output expectations, but no output schema exists and the purpose is straightforward, so it's nearly complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description for extensionPath. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics; baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the meaning.

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's purpose: 'Validate manifest.json against MV3 requirements'. This uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (manifest.json with MV3), distinguishing it from sibling tools like extension_load or eval_extension_page.

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 usage context with 'no browser needed' but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct comparison to sibling tools, so it's useful but not fully explicit.

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