extension_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only filesystem lookup returning a path, with no side effects. It doesn't elaborate on failure modes or prerequisites, but the simple nature of the operation makes the description adequate.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes: 'Get absolute path', 'unpacked Chrome extension directory', and 'for manual installation' all add necessary information 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?

For a zero-parameter helper that returns a filesystem path, the description is complete. An agent can correctly invoke it without further details, especially since the output format is covered by an output schema.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. Following the baseline guidance for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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'), a precise resource ('absolute path to the unpacked Chrome extension directory'), and an explicit purpose ('for manual installation'). This clearly distinguishes it from extension-management siblings like list_extensions, set_extension_enabled, and uninstall_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 phrase 'for manual installation' gives clear context for when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter path-lookup tool the situational cue is sufficient. A 5 would require explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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