browser_get_storage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions a prerequisite and the nature of the data source, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or what error conditions exist. For a read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary, a clear prerequisite, a brief rationale, and an argument list. The rationale about web apps storing tokens is useful but adds length. Overall, every sentence has purpose, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisite, and two of three parameters. It lacks any mention of tab_id and does not explicitly describe the return structure (though an output schema exists). Given no annotations, the description carries more weight, and these gaps prevent it from being fully 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?

The description explains storage_type (local, session, both) and session_name (browser session) with defaults, which adds value since the schema itself has no descriptions. However, tab_id is entirely omitted, leaving a gap. The partial coverage compensates for the 0% schema coverage but is not complete.

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 and resource: 'Dump browser localStorage and/or sessionStorage contents.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing it returns data the proxy cannot see, making it clear this is for client-side storage rather than network traffic. Examples like JWT tokens and API keys further clarify its purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need data stored client-side that never appears in HTTP traffic. It also gives a prerequisite (browser_open and browser_go must be called first). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude specific scenarios, so it falls just short of a 5.

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