CDP MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic frame searching, which is useful context, but fails to describe critical behaviors like error handling, performance implications of searching all frames, or what happens if the element isn't found. For a tool with mutation actions like 'click' and 'type', 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key behavior. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted verbiage or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters with mutation actions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or the implications of different actions. For a tool that performs operations like 'click' and 'type' in iframes, more behavioral context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining selector specificity in iframes or action nuances. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Interact with elements inside iframes' with the specific action of 'Automatically searches all frames for the element.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like cdp_interact by focusing specifically on iframe elements, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 (when dealing with iframes) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like cdp_interact or cdp_find_elements. It mentions automatic frame searching, which suggests it's for cross-frame interactions, but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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