fx_cookies

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only names and domains are returned and that the scope is the current origin. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the exact return format, but for a simple cookie lookup the key limitation is captured.

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 short and free of filler, front-loading the resource and scope. It is a noun phrase rather than a full instruction, which slightly reduces polish, but every word adds information.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: the origin scope and the restricted cookie fields. It could be more explicit about response shape and side-effect-free behavior, but an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter details the description needs to clarify. This matches the 0-parameter baseline of 4; there is nothing missing.

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 identifies a clear resource (cookies) and adds meaningful scope: current origin and names/domains only. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' but the subject and constraints make the tool's intent clear and distinguish it from the sibling page/navigation tools.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent needs cookie names/domains for the current origin. It does not provide explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to alternatives, but the intended use case is reasonably inferable from the phrase.

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