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 states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if navigation is synchronous/asynchronous, error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs), side effects (e.g., page load events), or dependencies (e.g., requires a connected browser via cdp_connect). For a navigation tool with zero 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 extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with zero wasted words. Every part ('navigate to a URL or perform navigation actions') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (navigation with multiple parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., how navigation interacts with browser state), error handling, and dependencies, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool correctly in a browser automation context.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (url, action, tab) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions URL and actions but doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., using url vs. action) or usage context. 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('navigate to a URL' and 'perform navigation actions') and resources (URL, back/forward/refresh actions). It distinguishes this as a navigation tool among siblings that include interaction, reading, and site management tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar navigation-related siblings like cdp_launch.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session), exclusions (e.g., not for initial browser launch), or comparisons to siblings like cdp_launch (which might handle initial navigation) or cdp_interact (which might include navigation-like actions).

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