CDP MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the behavioral trait of simulating real keyboard input, mentions compatibility with modern frameworks, and specifies the prerequisite focus requirement. It doesn't cover error conditions or performance characteristics, but provides solid 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?

Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral context and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place - no wasted words, no redundancy, and optimal information density.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about when and how to use it, framework compatibility, and prerequisites. It doesn't describe return values or error cases, but given the schema completeness and clear operational guidance, it's nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, but the schema itself provides complete documentation for all parameters including defaults and purposes.

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 ('Type text at the current cursor position'), the mechanism ('using CDP Input.insertText'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it works with React/Vue/Angular controlled inputs. It explicitly differentiates from cdp_set_value and other input methods.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Focus an element first with cdp_interact focus action' and implicitly distinguishes from cdp_set_value by mentioning it simulates real keyboard input for controlled inputs. The description clearly establishes the prerequisite and appropriate context.

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