neuron_get_cookies

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself conveys that this is a read-only 'Get' operation, which is a key behavioral trait. It lists the cookie attributes returned, giving the agent a clear idea of the response content. It stops short of stating whether any session or tab state is required, but for a simple read operation the verb and fields suffice.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and object ('Get all cookies for a URL') and then packs the relevant returned fields into a compact list. Every word adds value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 is simple with one fully documented parameter. Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned cookie attributes. It could be slightly more complete by noting that cookies are returned from the current browser session or by clarifying behavior on URLs without cookies, but the current level is sufficient 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'url' parameter. The description only matches it with 'for a URL' and adds no extra semantics about format, encoding, or edge cases, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the operation ('Get'), the resource ('cookies'), and the scope ('for a URL'). It also enumerates the exact cookie attributes returned (values, domain, expiry, secure, httpOnly, sameSite), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like neuron_get_storage or neuron_set_cookie.

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 phrase 'for a URL' implies the tool should be used when cookie information for a specific URL is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like neuron_get_storage, neuron_set_cookie, or neuron_delete_cookie. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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