DrissionPageMCPServer_Modified

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it returns all cookies or filtered ones, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, meriting a 2.

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 a single, efficient sentence: '获取当前页面的Cookies'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. This earns a 5 for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and siblings like connect_browser that suggest prerequisites, it lacks context on dependencies or behavioral details. The output schema helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral transparency, resulting in a 3.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no inputs are required. Given the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, this scores a 4.

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 the tool's purpose as '获取当前页面的Cookies' (Get the current page's cookies), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_element_text or get_page_text by focusing on cookies rather than DOM content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_network_logs might also involve cookie data), keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session via connect_browser), nor does it specify scenarios where cookies are relevant over other data sources. With no usage context provided, this scores a 2.

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