get_cookies

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 only states that cookies are fetched; it does not mention whether any browser permissions are required, whether the extension bridge session needs to be active, whether the call is read-only, or what happens when no cookies exist. 'Get' implies a read operation, but key behavioral context is missing.

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 short sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the mention of 'via the Chrome extension bridge' adds relevant context. It is concise, though it sacrifices some helpful detail for brevity.

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 getter with an output schema available, the description provides enough to understand the primary purpose. However, it lacks guidance on session_id, usage boundaries relative to cookie-modifying tools, and behavioral details. It is adequate but has clear gaps; it is not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for tab_id by distinguishing 'current page' from 'specified tab', but it never explains session_id, which remains entirely undocumented. The description only partially clarifies the parameter space.

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 identifies a clear action ('Get') and resource ('cookies') with a specific scope: current page or specified tab. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_cookies or delete_cookies, but the read/write distinction is inferable from the verb, so it is not misleading.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools include set_cookies and delete_cookies, but the description never names them or explains the boundary between reading and modifying cookies. The implied usage is clear only from the verb 'get'.

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