zerodom_get_storage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, operates in page context, returns keys and values, and decodes JWT-shaped values into claims. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the schema. Minor gaps like cross-origin restrictions or storage-quota behavior are not disclosed, but the core safety profile is clear.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adds contextual value: session-state examples, the safety comparison to eval, and JWT decoding. It is somewhat wordy in the middle sentence, but every sentence contributes useful differentiation or behavioral detail.

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 tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is listed, where it comes from, why it matters, and a notable value transformation. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter usage. Baseline 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are irrelevant here and the description appropriately omits them.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List localStorage and sessionStorage keys the active tab's page holds.' This clearly identifies what data is accessed and scopes it to the active tab. The read-only distinction from zerodom_eval_js further differentiates the tool from a sibling.

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 gives clear usage context by positioning storage inspection as safer than zerodom_eval_js: 'Same trust boundary as zerodom_eval_js... but purpose-built and read-only.' This helps an agent choose it for reading session state without eval capabilities. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or other sibling alternatives, so it stops 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.