browse_cookies

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

While annotations are absent, the description explains the stealth parameter's acceptance for compatibility and that actual behavior is server-controlled, adding some transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network requests, cookie setting by the page, or any required 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?

The description consists of two efficient sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details return fields. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the core purpose and return structure. However, it omits error handling (e.g., invalid URL), edge cases (empty cookie set), and lacks usage context relative to siblings, leaving some gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value for the stealth parameter by clarifying it is accepted but not effective, but for the url parameter it merely restates the schema. Overall, moderately helpful beyond schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Navigate' and 'retrieve', the resource 'URL' and 'cookies', and specifies the scope 'all cookies set by the page'. It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like browse_url or browse_evaluate.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (browse_url, browse_evaluate). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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