zerodom_get_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it succeeds by disclosing the CDP/Playwright mechanism and the meaningful difference from document.cookie: it sees httpOnly cookies. This gives the agent a concrete behavioral expectation beyond a generic 'get cookies'.

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 compact and front-loaded: the one-line purpose is immediately followed by a short mechanism note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only cookie retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: scope ('active tab's origin'), method (CDP via context.cookies()), and a key behavioral caveat (httpOnly visibility).

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?

There are zero parameters)Skip this baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and the operation is fully self-contained.

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 opens with a precise verb-plus-resource statement: 'List cookies visible to the active tab's origin.' It clearly scopes the operation and adds implementation detail that helps distinguish it from related browser inspection tools like reading storage or page text.

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 context is implied: use this when you need cookies for the active tab's origin and especially when httpOnly cookies matter. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named.

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