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 mentions conditions but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what happens on timeout (e.g., error or return), whether it blocks execution, if it's idempotent, or any performance implications. This is inadequate for a tool with potential side effects like navigation changes.

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 ('Wait for conditions') and lists examples. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by grouping conditions or adding a brief context.

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 complexity of a conditional waiting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or interaction with other tools (e.g., what happens after waiting). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in automation scenarios.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the condition types, which are already covered by the enum in the schema. 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 tool's purpose as waiting for various conditions (element visible, text contains, navigation, etc.), which is a specific verb+action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like cdp_navigate or cdp_find_elements, which might involve similar timing or condition-checking aspects.

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 lists conditions but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention whether this is for synchronous waiting during automation or how it relates to tools like cdp_interact or cdp_execute.

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