get_cookies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful scope context ('current page or specified tab') and the extension-bridge mechanism, but it does not disclose what cookie set is returned, whether domain filtering applies, or how session_id affects behavior.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The main cost is under-specification, which is already penalized in other dimensions rather than in structure.

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 tool has two optional parameters and an output schema, but session_id remains entirely opaque and no guidance is given about precedence if both tab_id and session_id are supplied. Because one of the two parameters is unexplained and no usage context is provided, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the prose needed to explain both parameters. 'Specified tab' partially conveys tab_id, and 'current page' hints at the null-tab default, but session_id is never mentioned or explained. The description compensates for one parameter, not the other.

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 names the resource ('cookies'), the scope ('current page or specified tab'), and the mechanism ('Chrome extension bridge'), so an agent can tell it is a read operation distinct from set_cookies/delete_cookies. It does not explicitly reference a sibling tool or formalize what 'current page' means, so it stops short of perfect differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings set_cookies, delete_cookies, or other cookie-related tools. The description implies it should be used when cookie values are needed, but it never states alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions.

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