test_with_different_cookies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It transparently describes the save/apply/restore cycle ('Saves original cookies, applies test cookies, optionally restores'), which is the key behavioral trait regarding state modification. It could also mention that content extraction occurs (based on extractContent), but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 the main workflow and safety net (save/restore), which is crucial for a test tool modifying cookies. However, it does not explain what 'test' entails (e.g., navigation or content extraction) or what output to expect, but this is partially covered by the extractContent parameter schema. Given the tool complexity with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds general workflow context but does not go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. According to the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Test a page') with a clear scope ('with modified cookies'), and the additional sentence details the workflow. This distinguishes it from sibling cookie tools like set_cookie or get_cookies, which focus on individual cookie operations rather than testing page behavior under modified cookies.

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 implies that this tool is for testing a page under modified cookies, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_cookie or clear_cookies. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

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