bowire.cookies.list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose genuinely useful traits — that cookies are grouped per environment and that values are credentials and therefore masked — but says nothing about read-only guarantees, pagination, or permissions.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the scoping detail and the field enumeration. The field list is slightly stringy but every element carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields (domain, path, name, expiry, Secure/HttpOnly/SameSite) plus the masking caveat meaningfully fills that gap. Minor omissions — no pagination or explicit read-only statement — keep it short of a 5.

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 100%, so both env and workspaceId (including the 'omit for jars outside any workspace' default) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the per-environment scoping; the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the cookie jars"), then enumerates the fields returned per environment. It does not explicitly name the sibling bowire.cookies.clear, but the read verb makes the distinction obvious without opening a schema.

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 says what is listed but never when to use this versus bowire.cookies.clear or the env/workspace listing tools. The "per environment" phrasing hints at scoping but supplies no when-to-use or when-not guidance.

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