CDP MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Read' but not explicit), what permissions or context are needed (e.g., requires an active page connection), potential rate limits, or error handling. It only lists what can be read without operational context.

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 no wasted words. Every phrase ('Read content from the page', 'full page text, element text, attributes') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 a tool that reads content (which could involve complex returns like text or attributes), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., string, object), how errors are handled, or prerequisites like needing a connected page. For a read operation with potential variability, more 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying that 'target' corresponds to 'full page text, element text, attributes', but doesn't clarify how parameters interact (e.g., 'selector' is needed for 'element' target) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'content from the page', specifying what can be read: 'full page text, element text, attributes'. It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_click_coordinates (interaction) or cdp_navigate (navigation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from cdp_find_elements (which finds but doesn't read content).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to prefer cdp_read over cdp_find_elements for reading element text, or when to use it for page text versus other tools. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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