CDP MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing frames but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, identifiers). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage examples. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity (0 parameters), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or side effects. This is minimal viable for a simple tool but could be more comprehensive.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it effectively explains the tool's purpose without redundancy. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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 ('List all frames on the page') and resource ('main frame + iframes'), distinguishing it from siblings like cdp_list_tabs (tabs) or cdp_find_elements (elements). It provides concrete examples of use cases ('LinkedIn Easy Apply, Gmail compose'), making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to find iframes for LinkedIn Easy Apply, Gmail compose, etc.', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., cdp_frame_interact might be a follow-up), missing full explicit guidance.

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