CDP MCP

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. While 'Discover' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires page interaction, what happens if no elements are found, or any performance considerations (e.g., timeouts, pagination). It mentions 'interactive elements' but doesn't define what makes an element interactive beyond the examples. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the action ('Discover'), target ('interactive elements'), and context ('on the page'), with helpful examples in parentheses. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must infer how results are returned (e.g., list of elements, their properties) and any operational constraints.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters including their types, defaults, and examples (e.g., exclude_text). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general scope of 'interactive elements.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 with a specific verb ('Discover') and target ('interactive elements on the page'), and provides examples of what constitutes interactive elements (inputs, buttons, links, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cdp_click_coordinates or cdp_navigate by focusing on element discovery rather than interaction or navigation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cdp_interact which might also involve elements.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., cdp_interact, cdp_click_coordinates, cdp_set_value), there's no indication of when element discovery is preferred over direct interaction or other methods. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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