discover_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'List' implies non-destructive read-only behavior, but it doesn't explicitly state that, nor does it mention any prerequisites like Chrome needing to be started with --remote-debugging-port or that it returns a list with target metadata. It's adequate but minimal for a simple tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. No unnecessary words. The structure efficiently communicates both what and why.

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 list tool with optional params and no output schema, the description covers the key output hint (WebSocket URL) and purpose. It doesn't detail the exact response structure, but the hint is sufficient for an agent to know what to extract. Missing error handling or host/port specifics are minor given schema defaults.

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 coverage is 100% (host and port both have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'Chrome debugging targets'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like connect_cdp and fetch_enable by specifying it's a discovery operation to find WebSocket URLs.

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'Use this to find the WebSocket URL to connect to.' This implies it should be used before connect_cdp, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but that's less critical for a discovery tool.

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