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. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'List' entails—whether it returns tab titles, URLs, IDs, or a structured array, or if it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of tab objects with properties) or any behavioral nuances (e.g., requires an active CDP connection). For a tool in a complex browser automation context, this leaves the agent guessing about critical execution details.

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 the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as none exist. It earns a baseline 4 because no parameter information is needed, and the description doesn't misleadingly suggest any.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all open browser tabs'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cdp_list_frames or cdp_site_list, but the specificity of 'browser tabs' provides inherent distinction. This is not a tautology since the name 'cdp_list_tabs' doesn't fully convey the scope.

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 like cdp_list_frames or cdp_site_list. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session via cdp_connect) or typical use cases (e.g., inventory before navigation). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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