browser_get_cookies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description merely states the action without any detail about return format, scope, side effects (none expected for a getter), or whether it requires a browser context. This is a total lack of transparency.

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 extremely short (a single phrase), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The phrase '获取Cookie' does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool name. It lacks any explanatory structure or helpful detail, falling into the 'Process' trap where brevity replaces substance.

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 simplicity (no parameters), the description still fails to provide essential context. It does not state what cookies will be returned, whether they are for the current page or all cookies, or what the output format is (since there is no output schema). The description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior without additional inference.

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 input schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to add parameter details, though it could have used the space to explain what 'cookies' refers to.

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 '获取Cookie' translates directly to 'Get Cookie', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'browser_get_cookies'. It does not add any specificity about what cookies are retrieved (e.g., all cookies, current page, domain), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools. This is a tautology rather than a purposeful description.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements browser_set_cookies and browser_clear_cookies, nor does it explain prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page). The absence of any usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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