get_cookies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and clearly discloses behavioral traits: it's read-only ('Read'), limited to the current origin, and invisible to HTTP-only cookies. This goes well beyond any structured metadata.

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 well-crafted sentences. The first states the action and scope, the second adds limitations and alternatives. Every word earns its place, and the key message is 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists. The description fully covers the purpose, limitations, and alternatives, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context about the scope ('current origin only') which gives meaning beyond the empty schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 4.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'document.cookie' with a specific scope 'for the current origin only.' It differentiates from sibling tools like list_all_cookies by noting its intentional limitations.

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 provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it's limited to non-HTTP-only, same-origin cookies, and suggests alternatives like list_all_cookies/export_cookies for full-fidelity access.

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