cdp_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool targets a page websocket, that browser-level domains fail, and that it runs against a given tab or the first page tab. It also documents the return format. However, it does not warn about potential side effects of raw CDP commands (e.g., Page.navigate changing state), which would be useful for an escape-hatch tool.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage context, and the third provides key technical details and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 description covers the essential aspects for a raw CDP tool: purpose, usage context, target selection, domain limitations, and return format/error format. This is quite complete given the low complexity. The only gap is the lack of explicit mention of potential side effects or safety precautions, which would be a valuable addition for an escape hatch.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining 'method' as any CDP method with examples, 'params' as its parameters, and 'tab_id' implicitly through 'Runs against the given tab (or the first page tab).' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 function: 'Send a raw CDP command and return its raw result — escape hatch.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and it distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as a low-level fallback. It also clarifies its scope (page websocket only, browser-level domains not supported), which further differentiates it.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the higher-level tools don't cover what you need,' giving a clear guideline for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also states the limitation that browser-level domains like Browser.* and Target.* are not supported, helping the agent avoid misuse.

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