browser_get_cookies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation without mentioning return format, whether URL is required (schema shows 0 required params), domain/path matching behavior, or potential side effects. Minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. No filler or redundant information; it is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete. It falls slightly short because it does not indicate the optionality of 'url' (schema shows 0 required properties) or the absence of a return value specification, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively in most scenarios.

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 single parameter 'url' is already fully described in the schema as 'URL to get cookies for', and the description adds no additional semantic detail. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is 100% and the description does not enhance it, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Read cookies for a URL' uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('cookies') with a clear scope ('for a URL'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like browser_set_cookies or browser_get_storage, which involve different operations. This is a textbook example of clear purpose.

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 usage: call this when you need cookies for a given URL. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over browser_get_storage or browser_set_cookies, nor does it provide any prerequisites or context (e.g., whether a browser session must be active). The usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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