inspect_cookies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists what the tool returns (domain, path, expiry, flags, security issues) and mentions capabilities (third-party detection, filtering). It does not claim any side effects, which is consistent with an inspection tool. A minor gap is not stating read-only behavior explicitly, but the context implies it.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the return content. Every phrase adds value: 'security analysis', the enumerated issues list, 'third-party detection', 'filtering options'. No redundant or filler text.

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 read-only inspection tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the return value comprehensively, mentions filtering, and lists specific security issues. The context (current page, security analysis) sets proper expectations. No additional information is needed for correct usage.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters (domain and issues_only) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds 'filtering options' but does not elaborate beyond what the schema already covers. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description provides no additional semantic nuance beyond the 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 identifies the tool's action ('Inspect cookies'), resource ('the current page'), and the specific value-added feature ('with security analysis'). It enumerates the output fields including security issues, which distinguishes it from any potential generic cookie getter. Since there are no direct sibling tools for cookies, it is unambiguous.

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 states the tool inspects cookies on the current page, implying it should be used when cookie inspection is needed. It mentions filtering options (domain, issues_only) and third-party detection, providing context for use. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it (e.g., if only basic cookies are needed) or name alternatives, but the absence of sibling cookie tools makes this less critical.

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