get_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that reads target the tab URL or an explicit url; it omits permission/auth requirements, whether httpOnly/secure cookies are included, and the return shape. This is thin for a network-adjacent read tool with no annotation coverage.

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 tight sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than maximal clarity.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage mean the description should do more. It fails to address permissions, cookie visibility rules, or the return format an agent needs to interpret results.

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 50%: tabId is documented inline (default agent's tab) but url has no schema description, and the description only implies url overrides the tab. It adds marginal meaning to the undocumented url parameter without fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 (Read) plus resource (cookies) and clarifies the scope: cookies visible to the tab's URL or a supplied url. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like storage or snapshot that an agent might confuse with session data retrieval.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The description hints at a url override but gives no condition for choosing between the tab's URL and an explicit url.

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