storage_inspector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that save_session persists state and load_session restores it, but it omits important behaviors: what clear_cookies, indexeddb, and service_workers do beyond their names, whether load_session overwrites current state, whether save_session prompts or overwrites files, and any side effects on the active session. The mutating nature and potential side effects are not sufficiently disclosed.

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 compact and well-organized as an action list. The opening sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the parenthetical explanations are short. It is efficient, though the last few actions receive no detail, making the list slightly uneven in clarity.

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 six-action tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, required arguments per action, error cases, or the behavior of undocumented actions. An agent would need to guess what indexeddb and service_workers return or how they affect the browser. The tool is complex enough that more detail is necessary 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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (sessionPath has a description). The description adds meaning for three of the six action enum values (cookies, save_session, load_session), but leaves clear_cookies, indexeddb, and service_workers as bare names with no explanation. It does not clarify that sessionPath is only relevant for save_session/load_session, leaving the agent to infer parameter applicability. Partial compensation for schema gaps.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect and manage client-side storage & sessions' and lists six specific action names with brief explanations for most. It identifies a unique domain (storage/sessions) that is distinct from sibling browser-automation tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The action descriptions imply some use cases (e.g., 'restore state from file without re-logging'), but there is no direct statement of when to prefer storage_inspector over other tools or when not to use it. Context is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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