http_session_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes the read-only, hypothetical nature explicit ('Show... would be sent') and implies URL-scoped cookie matching. It does not describe output format or edge cases, but the safety profile is clear.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the practical usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema or nested objects. The description covers what it does, when to use it, and what URL input is expected, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `url` parameter. It only restates 'this URL' without adding format, scheme, or matching rules. The description adds little beyond the property name itself.

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 ('Show') and resource ('browser cookies') and defines the exact scope: cookies that would be sent with an HTTP request to a given URL. This clearly distinguishes it from generic cookie-listing tools and from http_request itself.

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?

It states an explicit before/after decision rule: use it to confirm session sharing before relying on http_request. This gives the agent a concrete trigger and names the relevant sibling tool in context.

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