Import Profile from Chrome

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the process and startup requirement but omits details like overwrite behavior, Chrome version compatibility, or return value. It adequately covers the main action but not edge cases.

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 plus a command, highly efficient and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, setup, and benefits. Missing details on whether it overwrites existing profiles or captures only cookies (not storage) keeps it from a perfect score.

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%, so description adds little beyond schema. The description implicitly links 'CDP' to the cdp parameter and 'auth cookies' to domains, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 precisely states the tool's action: connect to Chrome via CDP, capture auth cookies, and save as a Leapfrog profile. It clearly distinguishes the benefit (real auth, reCAPTCHA trust, isolated session) and differentiates from sibling profile tools like profile_list and profile_delete.

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 implies usage when needing real Chrome auth in isolation and provides a prerequisite command to start Chrome. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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