storage_inspector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does explain that save_session persists state and load_session restores it, but it fails to mention side effects such as overwriting current session state, the destructive nature of clear_cookies, or security implications around session files and passphrases. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that can manage and modify browser state.

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 front-loaded with the overall purpose before enumerating actions. The list format is efficient and easy to parse, but the uneven detail across the six actions means it could still be made clearer without adding excessive length.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for a tool with six actions, file I/O, encryption options, and potentially destructive operations. It lacks guidance on return values, side effects, required preconditions, and what each remaining action produces, leaving an agent under-informed 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?

The schema describes passphrase and sessionPath well, and the description adds meaning to the action parameter by explaining what cookies, save_session, and load_session do. This helps an agent select and combine the action, passphrase, and sessionPath parameters correctly, though a few enum values like indexeddb and service_workers still lack explicit semantic explanation.

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 clearly identifies the tool's domain: client-side storage and sessions, and lists six specific action names. It uses a clear verb-resource pairing ('Inspect and manage') and differentiates the main sub-actions (cookies, save_session, load_session), though several actions like clear_cookies, indexeddb, and service_workers appear without any explanatory detail.

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 the tool is useful, especially with load_session described as 'restore state from file without re-logging'. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with any sibling tools or state when an alternative should be preferred instead, so the usage guidance is mainly inferred rather than explicit.

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