desktop_cdp_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the read-only/no-mutation guarantee and explains the meaning of an empty result. It stops short of describing what a populated result looks like (endpoint addresses, page titles/URLs, fields per target), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the safety profile, then the decision it supports, then the fallback action. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, purpose, safety, and the empty-result routing are all covered. The only meaningful omission is the shape of a non-empty result, which the agent must discover by calling it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and the description correctly adds no parameter guidance where none is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: scans all open CDP debug endpoints on the local machine and their pages, explicitly read-only. This clearly separates it from siblings like desktop_cdp_open, desktop_browser_launch, and desktop_list_windows, which act on windows or connections rather than enumerating endpoints.

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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: use it to determine whether a browser can be connected to right now, and if the result is empty, use desktop_browser_launch to start one. Both the when-to-use and the fallback path are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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