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 creating a dedicated profile directory, which adds some context about isolation, but fails to address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a long-running process, if it requires specific system permissions, potential resource consumption, or how to manage the launched browser lifecycle. For a tool that launches a browser process, 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 are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information 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 complexity of launching a browser with CDP enabled (a potentially resource-intensive operation with system dependencies), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks important contextual information about what the tool returns, error conditions, or operational constraints that would be needed for robust agent usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Launch a Chrome/Chromium browser with CDP enabled') and the resource ('Creates a dedicated profile directory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cdp_connect (which connects to an existing browser) by explicitly mentioning it creates a new browser instance with CDP enabled.

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 by stating it 'creates a dedicated profile directory,' suggesting this is for launching a fresh browser instance rather than connecting to an existing one. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like cdp_connect for connecting to already-running browsers.

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