send_cdp_command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, closed-world call. The description adds the backend-availability constraint, but says nothing about what an arbitrary command can alter, error behavior, or whether it is reversible — notable for a 'destructive' tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the availability constraint is placed immediately after the action.

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 an arbitrary-command escape hatch with no output schema and partial parameter documentation, the description covers the key gating condition but omits the return shape, failure modes, and method/params usage needed to call it confidently.

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 only 33%: 'method' and 'params' carry no descriptions, and the description adds nothing about their format or expected values. Only 'targetId' is documented in the schema (referencing typora_status), so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Send an arbitrary Chrome DevTools Protocol command') and frames the scope around the CDP-exposing backend, which distinguishes it from the DOM/selector-oriented siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool for the non-CDP case.

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?

Provides a clear when/when-not: usable 'when the selected backend exposes CDP', not available in 'standalone mode'. This is real routing guidance, though it does not point at a fallback tool for standalone scenarios.

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