wrave_get_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'retrieve cookies.' It does not explain whether the operation is strictly read-only, what the return format is, what 'for the tab or domain' means, or how errors are handled. The phrase 'or domain' is not reflected in the input schema, adding ambiguity rather than clarity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately compact for a simple one-parameter tool, though the ambiguous 'or domain' phrasing keeps it from being a model of clarity.

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 one-parameter read-oriented tool, the description is minimally viable: the action and primary input are identifiable, and the schema covers the parameter. However, it lacks any mention of return value, behavior on invalid tab IDs, or the intended relationship between 'tab' and 'domain,' and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 schema already documents tab_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description's 'tab or domain' wording implies a domain-based input that does not exist in the schema. Rather than adding useful parameter semantics, it introduces a possible alternative that is unsupported.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('cookies'), and the target scope is at least partially clear ('for the tab or domain'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like wrave_get_dom_tree and wrave_get_console_logs, though 'or domain' introduces some ambiguity about whether a domain can be supplied instead of a tab_id.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of sibling inspection tools such as wrave_get_tab_state, wrave_get_snapshot, or wrave_get_dom_tree. There are no stated exclusions or alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and terse description.

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