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 states the tool lists sites 'in memory' with 'key info', which implies a read-only operation that returns structured data. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: what 'key info' includes (e.g., URLs, titles), whether it's paginated or returns all at once, if it requires an active browser session, or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loads the core action ('List all sites in memory') and adds clarifying detail ('with their key info'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks completeness for practical use: no output details (what 'key info' entails), no behavioral context (e.g., dependencies on other tools like cdp_launch), and no error handling. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It appropriately avoids discussing inputs.

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 ('List') and resource ('all sites in memory') with the scope of providing 'their key info'. It distinguishes from siblings like cdp_site_info (which likely provides detailed info for a specific site) and cdp_site_clear (which clears sites). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cdp_list_tabs or cdp_list_frames, which are related but different resources.

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., after launching a browser with cdp_launch), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like cdp_site_info for detailed site data or cdp_list_tabs for tab-level listing. Usage is implied as a general listing operation but lacks explicit context.

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