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 effectively describes key behaviors: the tool performs a scan operation (implying read/write to memory), includes an automatic skip mechanism based on epoch, and allows forced rescans. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or performance impacts, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details in compact clauses. Every sentence adds necessary information without waste, such as the detection scope and usage rules, making it efficient 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, it lacks information on return values or error cases, which would be helpful for a tool with memory storage implications. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'force' in context ('to rescan anyway') and implying 'note' is for site memory, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical descriptions. It doesn't fully detail parameter interactions, keeping it at 4.

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 specific action ('Scan current page structure and store in site memory') and resource ('current page'), distinguishing it from siblings like cdp_site_info or cdp_site_list. It specifies what is detected (iframes, shadow DOM, forms, key elements), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Automatically skips if already scanned this conversation epoch') and when to use an alternative approach ('Use force=true to rescan anyway'). It also implies context by mentioning 'compaction resets this', helping the agent decide based on epoch state.

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