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. It discloses that the tool retrieves stored memory from previous visits, which implies read-only behavior and historical data access. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, parameter behavior, and return data. It front-loads the core action ('Get stored site memory') and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it concise and effective.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter usage. However, as a data retrieval tool with potential complexity (e.g., returning iframe locations, shadow DOM elements), it could benefit from more detail on output structure or limitations. It's minimally viable but has gaps in fully contextualizing the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% coverage, providing a clear description. The description adds value by explaining that the domain parameter is optional and defaults to the current page if not specified, which clarifies usage semantics beyond the schema's basic description. Since there's only one parameter and schema coverage is high, this extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 'Get' and resource 'stored site memory', specifying it retrieves iframe locations, shadow DOM elements, and interaction patterns. It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_site_clear (which clears) and cdp_site_list (which lists), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 by mentioning 'current page or a specific domain', suggesting it can be used for both contexts. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cdp_site_list or cdp_site_scan, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is contextually implied but not detailed.

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