chrome-agent-bridge

by escapeWu

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.8.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools overlap significantly, such as browser_click vs browser_act, debugger_capture_hit vs debugger_wait_for_paused, and get_object_properties vs get_scope_variables_enhanced. The abundance of similarly prefixed tools (proto_*, sourcemap_*, analysis_*) makes it hard for an agent to pick the right one without deep inspection.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (browser_open_tab), some use noun_verb (sourcemap_fetch_and_parse), and others are single nouns (breakpoint, watch) or ad-hoc (understand_code, ast_transform_preview). Snake_case is used throughout, but the inconsistent patterns and occasional abbreviations reduce predictability.
Tool Count1/5
With 96 tools, this server is far beyond any reasonable scope, even for a Chrome DevTools bridge. The count alone overwhelms agent tool selection and introduces unnecessary complexity, making it an extreme mismatch.
Completeness4/5
The surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering browser automation, CDP, network monitoring, debugging, source maps, binary formats, and JavaScript analysis. Minor gaps like dedicated cookie editing exist, but these can be worked around via browser_cdp_send or debugger_evaluate.
Average 3.3/5 across 96 of 96 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects, session requirements, or any operational details. The tool could modify debugger state, but this is never mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise elegance. It is a fragment with no structure or front-loaded information that would help an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is completely underspecified. There is not enough information to understand its purpose, behavior, or parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'sessionId' and 'targetSessionId'. No examples, constraints, or relationships are described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Blackbox common framework and dependency script patterns' is a noun phrase without a clear verb. It hints at adding blackbox patterns but does not explicitly state the action or scope. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'blackbox_add'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'blackbox_add' or other debugger tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call stack is 'most recently captured' but does not reveal what happens if no pause has occurred, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a debugger tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must clarify the tool's behavior and return value. It only states the return type (call stack) and the source (recent pause) but omits important context like error conditions, session prerequisites, and what 'Raw session' means. This is insufficient for a tool with two parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of 'sessionId' or 'targetSessionId'. The term 'Raw session' is not tied to any parameter intention. The description adds no value beyond the schema properties themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Return') and the resource ('most recently captured Debugger.paused call stack'), with a specific scope ('for a Raw session'). This distinguishes it from broader tools like debugger_get_paused_state, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'most recently captured' implies a prerequisite (a prior pause event), but it does not state that prerequisite explicitly or mention any conditions for valid usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Consume' hints that events may be consumed/destroyed, but this is ambiguous and not explicitly stated. There is no mention of whether the operation is read-only, whether it clears the event buffer, or what other side effects occur. The return summary is mentioned but not described in detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is reasonably concise. It front-loads the action and resource. However, the term 'Consume' is slightly jargon-heavy, and a bit more structure (e.g., separating purpose and input) could improve clarity, but it does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations or output schema, the description needs to provide context about usage, parameters, return format, and relation to sibling tools. It only explains the summary operation, leaving out crucial context such as how this links to browser_network_start/poll, what sessionId refers to, and whether events are removed after processing. The complexity of the tool (3 params, one required) is not adequately addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters (sessionId, timeoutMs, targetSessionId). It does not explain what each parameter does, how they relate to the raw network events, or provide examples. Given zero coverage, this is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Consume' and 'summarize') and a specific resource: 'unsanitized Raw Network events'. It also lists the summarized aspects (counts, status, types, bytes, failures, duration), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_get_response_body or network_export_har. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it isn't a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'Consume unsanitized Raw Network events' implies it operates on events from a capture session, but there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing browser_network_start) or when to prefer this over network_export_har or network_get_response_body.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only return of metrics but fails to disclose any side effects, required target state (e.g., attached session), or the shape of the returned data. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, which is good for structure. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations, so the brevity works against completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to use it confidently. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and expected output details, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not explicitly define 'sessionId' or 'targetSessionId', though the phrase 'selected target's' loosely suggests the targetSessionId. This is insufficient to understand how to correctly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'selected target's CDP Performance.getMetrics values', making the primary function understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling performance tools like performance_coverage or performance_trace, which also return performance-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it returns, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to related tools such as performance_coverage or performance_trace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the core action and inputs but does not explain the output format, required message structure, limitations, or potential failures. The term 'deterministic state graph' is vague about what the result contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single under-specified sentence. It is concise but not especially well-structured or informative; the phrase 'direction, protocol fingerprint, and payload prefix' is not directly tied to the schema, and the sentence lacks necessary detail for a tool with one complex array parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (inferring a state graph from messages), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits what the state graph looks like, how messages should be ordered, and any assumptions about the protocol. The tool likely needs more context for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single 'messages' parameter with detailed fields (direction, timestamp, payloadHex), but the description does not mention this parameter or explain how to map the listed inputs (direction, protocol fingerprint, payload prefix) to the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Infer' and identifies the resource as a 'deterministic state graph', with inputs listed (direction, protocol fingerprint, payload prefix). It distinguishes from sibling tools like proto_infer_fields and proto_visualize_state by focusing on state machine inference, though it could be more explicit about being a protocol state machine.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proto_infer_fields or proto_auto_detect. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool 'preserves' metadata, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether parsing is side-effect-free, what happens with invalid or oversized input, how mapUrl is used, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Parse compatible mappings') and adds a specific detail about preserving metadata. It is efficient with no filler, though the phrase 'compatible mappings' could be more precise without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only two schema fields without descriptions. The single-sentence description does not explain return values, input expectations beyond the schema, how mapUrl affects behavior, or how this parser differs from other sourcemap-related tools. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple sibling alternatives and non-trivial metadata handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and neither the schema nor the description explains the meaning of the two parameters. The description never mentions mapText or mapUrl, nor their formats, constraints, or roles. With such low coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a parse operation on source maps and adds the specific behavior of preserving ECMA-426 debug ID and scope-field metadata, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sourcemap_lookup or sourcemap_coverage. However, the phrase 'compatible mappings' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly mention 'v4' within the description itself, relying on the title/name for that context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sourcemap_fetch_and_parse or sourcemap_discover. The metadata-preservation hint implies it is suited for v4 maps that contain debug IDs and scope fields, but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the analysis is intra-file and bounded, but does not explain what 'bounded' means (e.g., limits on code size, iteration depth) or what 'shallow taint-path' entails. There is no mention of read-only behavior, performance implications, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words, front-loading the verb and core output. Every term adds technical specificity, but the density of jargon makes it less readable than ideal. Still, it is concise and well-structured for an expert audience.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a data-flow analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, the nature of source/assignment/sink, or constraints like 'bounded' and 'shallow.' The agent would likely need to invoke the tool blindly to understand its behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'code' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it adds no meaning to the parameter. The parameter name 'code' is self-explanatory, so a score of 2 reflects the lack of explicit semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'produce' and identifies the resource as a 'bounded intra-file source, assignment, sink, and shallow taint-path projection.' This conveys a focused data-flow analysis action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analysis_ast_match or understand_code. However, the heavy jargon and vague terms 'bounded' and 'shallow' prevent a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analysis_security_scan or js_deobfuscate_pipeline. The intended use is only implied by the name and the term 'data flow.' No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention what happens if the debugger is not paused, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on execution state. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single direct sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning full marks for structural efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugger control tool with no annotations and two unannotated parameters, this description is too minimal. It lacks information about when to use the tool, what the parameters mean, and what outcome to expect, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'sessionId' or the ambiguous 'targetSessionId', leaving the agent to guess. Parameter names alone are insufficient, especially for 'targetSessionId'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Resume') and specific resource ('paused JavaScript debugger'), making the core action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like debugger_step or debugger_run_to_location, which also advance debugger state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'Use when paused, not for stepping'). The description implies use on a paused debugger but does not state prerequisites or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses 'recursively' and 'bounded' but fails to explain the nature of these bounds (e.g., depth, maxProperties), what happens when they are exceeded, whether the operation is read-only, or the structure of the returned graph. This adds minimal behavioral context beyond what parameter names suggest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and economically conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence summary is insufficient. It omits essential context such as the return value shape, how depth and maxProperties interact, the role of targetSessionId, and any error conditions. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only references 'object ID', which maps to objectId, but depth, maxProperties, sessionId, and targetSessionId are entirely unaddressed. The description fails to clarify their meaning, leaving most parameters ambiguous and the tool difficult to invoke correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'recursively expand' and identifies the resource as a 'bounded Runtime object graph' from an object ID, which clearly conveys the action. The title 'Expand scope variables' reinforces this purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_object_properties, but the recursive and bounded nature implies a more thorough introspection, setting it apart from simpler tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_object_properties or debugger_evaluate. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. The name 'enhanced' hints at a superset capability, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the limitation 'statically resolvable' and implies a code transformation, but it does not disclose whether the input is mutated, what the output format is (modified code vs. diff), side effects, or error cases. This is insufficient for a transformation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word carries meaning, and it is appropriately terse for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema (one parameter) but no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not state what the tool returns, how the input is interpreted, or any prerequisites. An agent would struggle to invoke it effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'code' parameter. It does not mention that the parameter should be JavaScript source code, how it is processed, or any format expectations. While the parameter name 'code' is somewhat self-evident, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific transformation ('Replace statically resolvable literal array member accesses with their literal values') with a concrete verb and resource, distinguishing it from broader deobfuscation or analysis tools. It lacks a mention of 'string arrays' or JavaScript, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description implies usage for static analysis but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or why one would choose it over similar tools like js_deobfuscate_pipeline or analysis_data_flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'Append' and 'update', but does not clarify whether existing blackbox patterns are preserved or overwritten, what session scope is affected, or whether the operation has side effects beyond the CDP call. The brevity leaves ambiguity despite the explicit mention of Debugger.setBlackboxPatterns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is efficiently worded and directly states the core action. It is not overly verbose, though it could benefit from a second sentence clarifying behavior or parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover session-related nuances, whether the operation is additive or replacing, or what the result/return value is. The lack of any behavioral or parameter detail makes the tool hard to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, with no per-parameter documentation. The description mentions 'patterns' but does not explain sessionId or targetSessionId, leaving the distinction between the two session-related parameters entirely opaque. No additional meaning is conveyed beyond what the raw schema types imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Append' and names the resource 'debugger blackbox patterns', and it explicitly ties the operation to the CDP method Debugger.setBlackboxPatterns. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like blackbox_list (listing) and blackbox_add_common (adding common patterns).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a debugger session must be active), nor does it reference sibling tools like blackbox_add_common or blackbox_list, which could clarify the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the pause occurs at the next JavaScript statement and that it is a request, but it does not mention prerequisites like an active session, side effects, or whether the tool blocks or resolves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, grammatically clear sentence front-loaded with the action. No word is wasted, though it sacrifices information that would be necessary for full usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugger control tool with two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain parameter roles, required session context, or interaction with other debugger tools, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either sessionId or targetSessionId. An agent cannot infer what session these parameters refer to or how targetSessionId differs from sessionId.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Request a pause' and identifies the exact resource/action: the next JavaScript statement. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like debugger_resume, debugger_step, and debugger_run_to_location by focusing on pausing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as debugger_step or debugger_run_to_location. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer when pausing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only discloses the core action (start/stop). It omits side effects, sampling impact, whether a session must already be attached, or what happens if started twice, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is maximally brief while still stating the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral details, a one-line description is grossly insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The agent receives no help understanding sessionId, action, targetSessionId, or samplingInterval beyond raw schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Start or stop') and the exact resource ('CDP HeapProfiler allocation sampling'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like performance_take_heap_snapshot or profiler_cpu.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies start/stop for sampling but does not mention exclusions, preconditions, or comparison with related profiling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what side effects (if any) exist. 'Export' suggests a non-mutating operation, but this is left implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately brief for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation requirements or expected results. It does not describe the output format or return value, which is a significant gap for a tool that generates a schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely refers to 'inferred fields' which likely maps to the 'fields' parameter. It does not explain the 'name' parameter or the structure of field objects (kind, length, offset, etc.), leaving the agent without necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and the resource ('inferred fields as a compact proto-like schema'), which distinguishes it from siblings like proto_infer_fields or proto_visualize_state. The purpose is specific, though it could more explicitly contrast with alternative tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. 'For review' implies a use case but does not clarify prerequisites or the relationship to sibling tools like proto_infer_fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only 'Find' operation and specifies the Acorn parser, but does not disclose output shape, traversal behavior, failure modes, or how filters are applied. Too sparse for a tool with no safety annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits return format and important behavioral caveats (e.g., whether code is parsed statically, how matches are represented, maxResult behavior). Given no output schema and no annotations, this brevity leaves too much unsaid for a 4-parameter tool in a complex analysis domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for two key parameters: 'Acorn node type' clarifies nodeType, and 'optional property filters' clarifies filter. Code and maxResults remain inferred from their names, which is acceptable, but not all parameters are explicitly explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Find'), names the resource ('AST nodes'), and specifies the matching criteria ('Acorn node type and optional property filters'). This clearly differentiates from transformation tools like ast_transform_preview, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling analysis tools like analysis_data_flow or ast_transform_preview. It lacks any explicit or implicit usage context, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects and behavioral traits. It merely states the operations without noting that breakpoints affect debugger state, whether a session must be active, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without wasting words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely underspecified. It does not cover parameter semantics, return values, error conditions, or usage prerequisites, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 14 parameters. The description makes no effort to explain parameter meanings, usage, or dependencies. It only loosely references breakpoint types (exception, XHR, event) that align with action enum values, providing minimal added value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds, removes, or lists source breakpoints and manages exception, XHR, or event-listener breakpoints. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes this tool from siblings, none of which handle breakpoint management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists actions without mentioning prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention allowed URL schemes (http, https, file, about:blank), which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details: whether this opens a new tab or reuses an existing one, whether the tab becomes active (the 'active' parameter), what happens on invalid URLs, and whether it waits for page load. The lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and supported URL types, earning its place with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's minimal schema (2 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It fails to mention the 'active' parameter's effect and does not clarify how this differs from 'browser_navigate', which is a critical distinction for an agent deciding between tools. The description is too sparse to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'url' parameter by enumerating supported schemes (http, https, file, about:blank), which is not fully captured by the schema's 'format: uri' constraint. However, it says nothing about the 'active' parameter (boolean, default true), leaving its purpose unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Open an HTTP, HTTPS, file, or about:blank URL in Chrome.' It uses a specific verb ('open') and resource ('URL in Chrome'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'browser_navigate', which also likely opens URLs, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_navigate, browser_activate_tab, or browser_list_tabs. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core actions: enabling the debugger on a session, collecting metadata, and optionally fetching sources into the local MCP process. However, it omits important behavioral details such as potential side effects on the session state (e.g., whether it pauses or alters execution), reversibility, or any required session prerequisites beyond being 'Raw.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('Enable Debugger'). It avoids unnecessary fluff. However, it compresses multiple steps into one sentence, which slightly hurts readability but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, session prerequisites, side effects, or how it fits with sibling debugging tools. It introduces the term 'Raw session' without definition, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool optimally.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It vaguely references 'optionally fetch bounded script sources,' which hints at includeSource and maxSourceBytes, but it does not clarify the meaning or purpose of waitMs, maxScripts, urlIncludes, or targetSessionId. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: enabling the debugger, collecting script metadata, and optionally fetching script sources. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (page JavaScript on a Raw session). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like debugger_lifecycle or sourcemap_fetch_and_parse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., debugger_session, sourcemap_fetch_and_parse). The only implied context is 'existing Raw session,' but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that it 'enables Runtime' and 'consumes' exception events, which hints at state-changing behavior (turning on a domain, potentially clearing an event queue). It also mentions 'bounded' and 'unsanitized', giving some detail about the output. However, it does not explicitly state that the 'clear' parameter may wipe stored exceptions, or what 'bounded' means in practice (e.g., count or timeout).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with 12 words, making it efficient. It avoids fluff and gets to the point. However, the brevity causes some vagueness; phrases like 'bounded unsanitized' are compressed and not immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the effect of each parameter, or the implications of enabling the Runtime domain (e.g., does it need to be disabled later?). It gives only a surface-level summary, which is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in diverse scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It uses words like 'consume' (relating to 'clear' maybe), 'bounded' (possibly 'timeoutMs' or a limit), and 'unsanitized' (implying raw output), but it does not explicitly map any of the four parameters ('clear', 'sessionId', 'timeoutMs', 'targetSessionId') to their roles. The description provides only weak hints, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 'targetSessionId' and the effect of 'clear'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: enabling the Runtime domain, consuming raw exception events, and returning exception details. It uses a specific verb ('enable', 'consume', 'return') tied to a resource (Runtime, exception events), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_cdp_send or debugger_get_paused_state by focusing on console exceptions. However, the phrase 'bounded unsanitized exception details' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing an active browser session or CDP connection, nor does it exclude scenarios where other tools (e.g., network_poll, debugger_wait_for_paused) would be more appropriate. The only implicit hint is that it is for retrieving runtime exceptions, but that is not enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'recursively project' but does not explain what happens with cyclic dependencies, the output format, whether recursion respects a depth limit (maxDepth), or what 'statically named' implies (e.g., dynamic calls are ignored). This lack of behavioral detail could lead to incorrect expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, subject, and scope. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that recursively computes a dependency tree, the description is minimal. It lacks information on the return value/tree structure, how depth is controlled, behavior on missing functions, and the distinction between static and dynamic calls. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is insufficient for reliable use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not define 'collectionId', explicitly tie 'functionName' to the searched script, or explain that 'maxDepth' controls recursion depth. The schema itself has no property descriptions, so the agent is left without any parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Find a named function') on a specific resource ('collected scripts') and the recursive projection of statically named call dependencies. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'search_in_scripts' or 'understand_code', and the phrasing immediately conveys the tool's core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or mention sibling tools. For an AI agent selecting among many analysis-focused siblings, this is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 adds 'deterministic' which implies consistent output, but it does not reveal side effects, error behavior, compression handling, or what happens with invalid input. The schema shows fields like compressed and isTrailer, but the description does not explain their impact on the output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the structure of the messages array, how payload encoding works, or how outputEncoding affects the result. An agent would need additional context to invoke this tool correctly for varied use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description has 0% schema coverage and does not mention any parameters. It does not clarify the purpose of 'messages', 'outputEncoding', or the payload fields. The schema defines types and defaults, but the description adds no semantic value to help an agent select or fill parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool builds deterministic gRPC or gRPC-Web length-prefixed messages. It uses a specific verb ('build') and resource ('length-prefixed messages'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'grpc_frame_parse' by focusing on construction rather than parsing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grpc_frame_parse or binary_encode. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the user to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that an authenticated fetch context is used, which is a useful behavioral disclosure, and notes that parsing happens locally. However, it does not explain side effects of the network fetch, whether it modifies state, or how failures are handled. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently covers the two operational modes without extraneous words. It front-loads the main verbs and is easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly indicating which parameter belongs to which mode.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation support, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the output format, required parameters per mode, or how the fetch context is selected. The description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further investigation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 5 parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description does not map any of them to the two modes. It doesn't clarify the roles of scriptUrl vs sourceMapUrl or the dual sessionId/targetSessionId fields. The only hint is that 'supplied source-map JSON' likely corresponds to mapText, but the description never names parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's dual function: parsing supplied source-map JSON or fetching a map via the page's authenticated fetch context and parsing locally. It uses specific verbs and a clear resource, making the core purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sourcemap_parse_v4 or sourcemap_discover beyond implying the fetch capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives two usage modes (supplied JSON vs fetching), implying when each path might be appropriate. It does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as sourcemap_parse_v4 or sourcemap_discover, nor does it state exclusions or require prerequisites. This is implied usage at best, lacking explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides some useful context by calling the pipeline 'reproducible local', implying determinism and no external network calls. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or side effects, so it only partially covers behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence, 10 words), which is good for brevity, but it lacks structure and does not front-load key information like the pipeline nature or parameter requirements. Under-specification prevents it from being truly well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), a single sentence is woefully incomplete. It ignores the transform steps, preview options, and output considerations. The description needs to cover more of the tool's operational surface to be contextually complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'base64 input' which hints at inputBase64. It does not explain the steps array, the op enum options, key/keyHex, previewBytes, or includeOutputBase64. This is severely insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Run a reproducible local binary transform pipeline over base64 input.' It uses a strong verb ('Run'), identifies the resource ('binary transform pipeline'), and adds scope ('over base64 input'), which differentiates it from siblings like binary_decode or binary_encode that imply single operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as binary_decode or binary_encode. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or explicitly name any sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add that the chain is 'in-memory' and scoped to 'this MCP process', which clarifies lifecycle and volatility. However, it omits behaviors like overwriting an existing name, return value, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It gets the core action and scope across quickly, meriting high conciseness despite being terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description lacks several contextual details: duplicate name behavior, how the chain is referenced later, relation to apply/preview siblings, and return value. The enum schema helps, but the narrative context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain parameters. 'Named' hints at the name parameter and 'chain' implies the ordered nature of transforms, but the transforms enum values and the optional description field are left entirely to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('in-memory named transform chain'), and clarifies the process-local scope. It is clear about the action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ast_transform_preview/apply.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ast_transform_apply or ast_transform_preview. There are no exclusions or context statements beyond the basic creation act.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states the core transformation (convert between encodings) but omits details about how the data parameter should be supplied for JSON input, the structure of the return value, or error handling. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the relevant formats. Every word contributes useful information; there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not specify what the output looks like, how to handle JSON input, or any defaults beyond those in the schema. For a tool with a generic 'data' parameter, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates the enum values for inputEncoding and outputEncoding, which the schema already provides, but it does not clarify the 'data' parameter's expected type or how to pass JSON content. The ambiguity around the 'data' parameter is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Encode') and names the resource (binary payload) and the input/output formats, clearly conveying the conversion purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like binary_decode, so it loses the point for sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as binary_decode or other encoding tools. It neither states explicit use cases nor exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that data is sanitized and provides details about completion/failure events (method, status, durationMs). However, it omits behaviors like cursor semantics, pagination limits, or whether reading is non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and event types, the second adds relevant detail about the completion/failure event fields. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only two sentences. It lacks essential context for a polling tool: what the response structure looks like, how cursors work, how to handle empty results, and how it relates to the broader network event workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. 'after a cursor' loosely maps to the afterCursor parameter, but limit, timeoutMs, and sessionId are not explained; the connection to the schema is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads network metadata events after a cursor, specifying the event types (request, response, completion, failure, WebSocket lifecycle). It distinguishes itself via the 'after a cursor' polling pattern, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like browser_watch_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as watch_events or network_stop. It implies sequential polling with 'after a cursor' but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 transparency. It discloses the polling mechanism and timeout behavior, but fails to mention return values, whether the session must already be attached, or any side effects on event consumption. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and termination conditions. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is severely underspecified. It omits parameter semantics, return value, prerequisites (e.g., an attached CDP session), and relationship to sibling tools, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters (sessionId, timeoutMs, targetSessionId). The agent receives no explanation of what each parameter means or how they relate to the polling behavior, so the description adds no semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it polls raw CDP events until Debugger.paused is observed or timeout expires. The specific verb 'poll' and the target event distinguish it from sibling tools like debugger_pause (which triggers a pause) and debugger_get_paused_state (which reads current state).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the agent needs to block until a pause event occurs, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over siblings or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the categories of regions to be inferred, but does not mention output format, whether the operation is read-only, any preconditions (e.g., equal-length samples), or limitations. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundant or ambiguous phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief to provide complete context. It does not explain the return value, any side effects, or sample requirements that would help an agent use the tool correctly. For a protocol inference tool with non-trivial behavior, this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter samplesHex is not mentioned in the description. The schema provides type and constraints but the description does not add meaning such as expected hex format, length consistency, or how the parameter relates to the inference. With 0% schema description coverage, this gap is significant.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool infers constant, variable, and variable-tail byte regions across repeated hex payloads. The verb 'Infer' and specific resource (byte regions) make the purpose understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like proto_auto_detect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'across repeated hex payloads' implies the tool is used to compare multiple hex strings, which is a usage condition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as proto_auto_detect or proto_infer_state_machine, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It explicitly states a side effect: 'modifies the chunk array only by appending a runtime probe', and uses 'bounded' to indicate a limit. This is valuable. However, it does not disclose execution context, potential errors, return format, or whether other state could be affected beyond the chunk array, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action in the first sentence and follows with a concise note on the side effect. The structure is efficient and appropriately sized for a brief overview.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, what 'Raw target' means, prerequisites (e.g., the target being a Webpack bundle), or error behavior. The description covers only the basic side effect and boundedness, leaving many operational aspects unknown.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only vaguely hints at parameters: 'bounded' alludes to maxModules and 'selected Raw target' to targetSessionId. The query and sessionId parameters are completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a verb ('Evaluate') and a resource ('Webpack module-table collector'), and the title clarifies it enumerates Webpack modules. It is distinguished from sibling tools by focusing on Webpack's module table. However, the verb 'evaluate' is less precise than 'enumerate' or 'list', and 'Raw target' is undefined, leaving slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'in the selected Raw target', which implies a target selection but does not explain it. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'apply', providing no details on output format, side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. 'Apply' suggests mutation but unclear if it returns transformed code or modifies state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no redundant words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return behavior, error conditions, and how the two modes interact. For a transformation tool, more context is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at two modes (inline transforms vs saved chain), which correspond to the 'transforms' and 'chainName' parameters, but does not explain the code parameter explicitly or the valid transform values. Lacks detail needed to correctly invoke.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Apply') with a clear resource (transforms/transform chain) and target (JavaScript). It distinguishes from siblings like ast_transform_preview (preview) and ast_transform_chain (save/manage chains) by focusing on actual application.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ast_transform_preview or js_deobfuscate_pipeline. The description implies usage (supply code and a transform), but does not state conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety profile. It does mention 'release child-target routing state', which is useful internal behavior, but it does not explain the impact on the tab (e.g., whether it stays open), what happens to the session, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words or filler. It front-loads the main action ('Detach') and clearly states the primary resource and additional state. This is an efficient and well-structured description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating cleanup operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not mention the return value (e.g., success/failure), side effects on the tab, or any prerequisites (e.g., session must exist). Given its role as a counterpoint to browser_cdp_attach, more detail is needed to use it safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter (sessionId) with string constraints, but the description does not reference this parameter at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining how to obtain or use the sessionId. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Detach') and clearly identifies the resource ('CDP session') and the scope ('from its tab and release child-target routing state'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools like browser_cdp_attach, browser_cdp_send, and browser_cdp_events, making its function immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it, what prerequisites must be met, or what alternatives exist. It does not mention that this should be used after finishing a CDP session or in conjunction with browser_cdp_attach. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action and does not mention whether the breakpoint is temporary or persistent, whether the debugger must already be paused, or what happens if the location is unreachable. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like debugging tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no filler and effectively communicates the core action without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as breakpoint lifecycle, required debugger state, parameter specifics, and relationship to sibling tools. The description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters. It vaguely references a 'script location' which maps loosely to scriptId and lineNumber, but it does not explain sessionId, columnNumber, or targetSessionId. Given five parameters, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set a breakpoint at a script location and resume execution' clearly states the tool's specific action: it combines setting a breakpoint with resuming execution to reach a source location. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debugger_resume (which only resumes) and breakpoint (which only sets a breakpoint).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as breakpoint, debugger_step, or debugger_resume. It only implies usage by describing the action, but there are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates the operation is a read ('Read properties') but does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., active debugger session), error conditions, or whether the operation has side effects. The 'selected Raw target' phrase is ambiguous and not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that states the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and successfully conveys the essential function in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry significant explanatory weight. It only provides a high-level purpose, leaving the meaning of 'selected Raw target' ambiguous and failing to specify input requirements, return behavior, or any constraints. This is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 6 parameters, but the description provides no explanation for any of them except an implicit reference to objectId. Terms like ownProperties, generatePreview, accessorPropertiesOnly, sessionId, and targetSessionId are left undefined, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (read properties), the target (Runtime remote object ID), and the context (selected Raw target). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_scope_variables_enhanced which deal with scope variables rather than direct object IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a remote object ID and need its properties, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as debugger_evaluate or get_scope_variables_enhanced. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core action ('Split') but does not disclose what the output format is (e.g., a list of frames, decoded messages), how errors are handled, whether splitting is lossless, or what the 'strict' flag does. For a parser tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. Conciseness is good, but the brevity comes at the expense of necessary details, making it merely adequate rather than excellent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and moderate complexity (gRPC framing includes length prefixes and trailers), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, the length-prefix format, endianness, or how trailing frames are represented. The tool may be simple, but the description should at least cover the basic output contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the parameters (data, strict, encoding). The schema provides only types and an enum, leaving the agent to infer from names. The description does not clarify what 'strict' means or how 'encoding' affects input interpretation, which is essential for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Split') and clearly identifies the resource ('gRPC or gRPC-Web length-prefixed messages and trailer frames'). It distinguishes clearly from siblings like grpc_frame_build (which builds frames) and http2_frame_parse (which handles HTTP/2 frames, not gRPC framing). Scope is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have gRPC or gRPC-Web wire-format data to split, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no reference to related tools (e.g., grpc_frame_build for the reverse operation). Guidance is only implied by the name and phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'parse' and 'including common frame payloads,' but does not explain output format, error behavior, supported frame types, or whether any transformation is applied. This is minimal added transparency beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and a complex binary protocol being parsed, the description is too sparse. It does not enumerate supported HTTP/2 frame types, how results are structured, or how multiple frames are delineated in the input, leaving major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single inputHex parameter. It adds 'from hex,' but does not clarify accepted hex formatting (e.g., whitespace, 0x prefixes, uppercase/lowercase), payload constraints, or examples, leaving significant ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool parses raw HTTP/2 frames from hex, with a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('HTTP/2 frames'). It also notes coverage of common frame payloads, which distinguishes it from siblings like grpc_frame_parse and network_http2_fingerprint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its purpose but does not mention related tools such as grpc_frame_parse for gRPC frames or proto_dissect_http for HTTP, leaving the agent without decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'without executing supplied code,' which is a key safety trait and adds behavioral context beyond the bare operation. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention return format, edge cases, or the meaning of maxIterations, leaving significant gaps in expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and avoids any redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise without being vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks when-to-use guidance, parameter semantics, and any mention of the return value or expected output, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in a complex context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It references 'supplied code' but never explains the purpose of code or maxIterations, their formats, or how they affect execution. This is a critical gap for a two-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb+resource: 'Fold safe literal binary expressions and prune literal boolean branches.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like general AST transforms or deobfuscation pipelines by focusing on constant constraint solving without execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like js_deobfuscate_pipeline or ast_transform_chain. The description only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases without explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions start/stop and optional CSS tracking, but fails to explain session lifecycle, what happens to existing coverage data, whether results are returned on stop, or the required session context. Significant behavioral gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the verb. It contains no filler and efficiently conveys the core action, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain return values, session semantics, or how parameters like sessionId and targetSessionId are used, leaving the 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the 'includeCss' parameter via 'optional CSS rule usage tracking' and the 'action' parameter via 'Start or stop', but does not mention the required 'sessionId' or 'targetSessionId' parameters, leaving their purposes unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function with specific verbs ('Start or stop') and a specific resource ('precise JavaScript coverage and optional CSS rule usage tracking'). It distinguishes this from sibling performance tools by focusing on coverage recording rather than metrics, heap snapshots, or tracing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like performance_trace or profiler_cpu. It implies usage for coverage recording but does not state context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that it starts/stops and returns data but omits statefulness (e.g., whether starting a new profile stops the previous one), side effects, or performance impact. 'Bounded hotspots' is also under-explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence that is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every word contributes to describing the tool's purpose and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't define the profile return format or 'bounded hotspots', nor does it differentiate from sibling performance tools. A more thorough explanation is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description names no parameters. sessionId and targetSessionId are completely unexplained, and the action enum's lifecycle is not clarified. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts or stops the CDP CPU profiler and returns the profile plus bounded hotspots. The verb 'start'/'stop' is explicit, and 'CPU profiler' distinguishes it from sibling performance tools like heap sampling or trace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (start or stop the profiler) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like an active session or exclusion scenarios, leaving usage partially inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool 'identifies' crypto, but does not disclose the output format, limitations (e.g., only common algorithms), whether it's static analysis, or any other behavioral characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value or provide any contextual detail about what the tool produces, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'code' has no schema description. The description adds that the code should be JavaScript, which helps clarify the expected input. However, it doesn't elaborate on how the code should be provided (e.g., path vs. string) beyond the schema's 'string' type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Identify' and clearly names the resource: common cryptographic algorithms and operations in supplied JavaScript. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like crypto_test_harness or detect_obfuscation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It omits any context about use cases, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that no network traffic is sent, which is a key safety trait, but it doesn't explain what a fingerprint is, whether it's deterministic, or what the output looks like. Minimal behavioral context beyond the single phrase.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action and a key constraint. It could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose, but it earns a 4 for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple input schema and no output schema, so the description is the only context. While the purpose is clear, the lack of return value details and lightweight usage guidance leaves gaps. For a single-parameter tool, this is borderline acceptable, but it falls short of fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the payload is 'raw hex', which clarifies the expected format for payloadHex. However, it doesn't provide examples or validate constraints beyond the schema. This is adequate for a single parameter but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'fingerprint' and the resource 'one raw hex payload', making the tool's core function apparent. The qualifier 'without sending network traffic' adds useful scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like proto_auto_detect, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without sending network traffic' implies an offline use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. The description hints at a context but doesn't provide exclusions or clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful traits like 'safe' and 'bounded', hinting at path safety and output size limits, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens for missing mapId, or any error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb 'Reconstruct'. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is under-specified. It does not describe the returned tree structure, what 'safe' or 'bounded' concretely mean, or how maxFiles affects the result, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies includeContents controls whether sourcesContent is returned, but maxFiles is not explained and mapId is only inferred from the tool name. With three parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: reconstruct safe relative source paths and optionally return bounded sourcesContent from a parsed source map. It distinguishes from siblings like sourcemap_parse_v4 or sourcemap_lookup by focusing on tree reconstruction, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from a parsed source map' implies it is intended to be used after parsing, but no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over tools like sourcemap_lookup or sourcemap_diff. There are no stated exclusions or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't state whether an active session is required, whether results are paginated, or what the return format looks like. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description should clarify what the list contains, how it is returned, or any preconditions (e.g., active session). It merely states the resource and scope, leaving the agent to guess at behavior and return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter, sessionId, is not explained in the description. The phrase 'for a Raw session' loosely connects to sessionId, but it lacks detail about the expected format, semantics, or how it relates to other session tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('blackbox patterns'), and the scope ('maintained for a Raw session'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like blackbox_add and blackbox_add_common, which add patterns rather than listing them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'maintained for a Raw session' hints at a session context, it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or why one would choose this over other debugger tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'compatibility selector-based click' without mentioning side effects, the confirmed flag for form-submitting clicks, or what happens on failure. The schema's confirmed parameter description is not echoed, leaving behavioral risks undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundancy, well-structured and front-loaded. However, it is extremely terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity, though that is a completeness issue more than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a browser interaction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't mention return values, error handling, or the click confirmation behavior, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only confirmed is described), so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain tabId or selector beyond the word 'selector', and the confirmed parameter's purpose is not mentioned. The description adds little value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action as a 'selector-based click' on a page element, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the newer browser_act by labeling itself 'compatibility', though it doesn't explicitly say 'click an element' beyond the title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states that new workflows should use browser_snapshot refs with browser_act, naming the alternative and providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. This strongly directs the agent to the preferred tool while implying this tool is for legacy use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It discloses the allowed URL schemes and the 'existing tab' constraint, but does not explain what happens after navigation (e.g., whether it waits for page load, returns success/failure, or modifies tab navigation history). The description stays at the surface level, leaving key behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Navigate') and immediately specifies the key constraints ('existing tab', URL schemes). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide more context about return values, error conditions, and how tabId relates to other tools like browser_list_tabs. The mention of 'existing tab' gives some context, but the lack of operational details makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It partially does by clarifying allowed URL schemes for the 'url' parameter, but the 'tabId' parameter is not explained at all—there is no guidance on how to obtain it or what it signifies. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other completely unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Navigate' and identifies the resource as an 'existing tab', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_open_tab (new tab) or browser_activate_tab (focus). It also specifies allowed URL schemes (HTTP, HTTPS, file, about:blank), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'existing tab' implies that this tool is for navigating an already-open tab, not for opening new ones. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like browser_open_tab or browser_activate_tab, nor does it provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but entirely implied, so it meets the minimum viable level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fallback behavior and the bounded nature of the projection, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core action and fallback strategy without wordiness. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of parameters, the output format, or when to use this over similar debugger/sourcemap tools, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (scriptId, sessionId, callFrameId, targetSessionId, includeSourceFallback). It only vaguely references 'script' and 'source-line projection', which is insufficient for an agent to correctly set parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: disassembling a script using CDP WASM disassembly with a fallback to source-line projection. The verb 'disassemble' is specific, and the mention of fallback distinguishes it from sibling tools like wasm_inspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the action (disassemble a script) without reference to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'executes code' which hints at side effects, but does not warn about potential consequences of executing arbitrary expressions, permission requirements, or promise resolution behavior. This is a significant gap for a code execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that convey the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It barely covers the basic function and leaves out crucial information about parameter usage, behavior, and return values. It under-specifies a potentially complex debugger operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for 'expression' and the distinction between global and call-frame evaluation (callFrameId). It does not explain sessionId, awaitPromise, returnByValue, or targetSessionId, leaving most parameters undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: evaluating an expression either globally or on a paused call frame. It uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('expression') and distinguishes itself from other debugger tools like get_object_properties or get_scope_variables_enhanced by focusing on general expression evaluation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (in debugger contexts, globally or when paused) but does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to use this instead of related tools like get_object_properties.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (enable/disable) without revealing side effects such as impact on existing breakpoints, session state, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies a debugging domain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a relatively simple toggle action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is minimally sufficient but incomplete. It omits details such as what happens if the session is invalid, whether enabling affects performance, and how it relates to other debugger lifecycle operations. The tool is simple, but more context would be needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It fails to clarify the purpose of targetSessionId or how the action and sessionId map to the described behavior, leaving the agent to guess from the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and a clear resource ('Debugger domain on an existing Raw CDP session'), making it distinct from sibling debugger tools like debugger_pause or browser_cdp_send. It answers what the tool does precisely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly states the prerequisite of an existing Raw CDP session, implying use after attaching a session (e.g., via browser_cdp_attach). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance slightly less explicit than ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one important behavior: 'Loading never silently recreates breakpoints,' which is valuable context. However, it does not mention other side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on save/export, leaving significant gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is just two sentences, front-loaded with the core action list. Every word earns its place, and the additional behavioral caveat is relevant and non-redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description is too brief to fill these gaps: it does not explain return values, side effects beyond the loading caveat, or the purpose of optional parameters. This is a moderately complex tool that needs a richer description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the actions (save, list, load, export) which map to the 'action' enum, but does not explain the meaning of 'name' or 'targetSessionId', nor how they relate to the session. This leaves half the parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Save, list, load, or export in-memory debugger metadata for one Raw session.' It uses specific verbs and a specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling debugger tools like pause/step/evaluate, which operate on execution state rather than session metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different debugger tool might be more appropriate. The only caveat ('Loading never silently recreates breakpoints') is a behavioral note, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key traits: 'Requires explicit confirmation and returns secrets.' However, it does not mention side effects, failure modes, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some ambiguity for a security-sensitive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise, action-fronted sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines scope, the second adds critical behavioral and return information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a security-sensitive purpose, the description is insufficiently complete. It covers purpose and one behavioral trait but leaves parameter semantics, output format, error handling, and usage context underspecified, increasing the risk of misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. 'Requires explicit confirmation' hints at the 'confirmed' boolean, but the required 'sessionId', 'targetSessionId', and 'timeoutMs' are completely unexplained, making correct invocation difficult.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb 'Extract' with a precise resource: 'authentication headers and associated cookies' from 'captured Raw events'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like network_get_response_body or browser_network_poll.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, triggers, or references to sibling tools. The only implication is that it is used for extracting auth material, but no decision framework is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral fact: 'Paused requests remain blocked until handled or interception is disabled.' But it omits other important aspects such as session prerequisites, lifecycle, or cleanup, limiting transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence enumerates all possible actions, and the second provides a crucial caveat. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It provides the action scope and one warning, but fails to explain how actions interact, what inputs are needed, or what responses look like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. The action list vaguely relates to the 'action' parameter, but the many other parameters (patterns, requestId, headers, etc.) are completely unexplained, making the tool very difficult to invoke correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages CDP Fetch interception with a specific list of verbs (enable, poll, continue, fail, fulfill, list, disable) and the resource 'explicit CDP Fetch interception'. This distinguishes it from higher-level network tools like browser_network_start/poll/stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by identifying it as 'explicit CDP Fetch interception' and warns about paused requests remaining blocked. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does well by revealing two important traits: it writes a private local artifact and it fails rather than returning an incomplete snapshot on buffer truncation. It does not cover authorization, runtime impact, or artifact lifecycle, but the provided details are meaningful and non-obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences deliver the core behavior and a critical failure mode with no filler. Front-loaded purpose and immediate follow-up on failure handling make it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It explains the core purpose and failure behavior but omits parameter semantics, return value/artifact details, and usage context. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (sessionId, targetSessionId, captureNumericValue). The agent cannot infer the role of these parameters from the description, making correct invocation difficult.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Capture') and a clear resource ('HeapProfiler snapshot chunks from Raw events') plus outcome ('write a private local artifact'). It distinguishes itself from sibling profiling tools like profiler_cpu and profiler_heap_sampling by focusing on snapshot chunks and the local artifact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as profiler_heap_sampling, performance_trace, or performance_get_metrics. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or a preferred context beyond the inherent implication of the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens with malformed or oversized inputs, or any side effects. The term 'bounded' hints at input limits but lacks specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. While it lists classification categories, it does not specify whether the output is per sample, the format, or error behavior. For a simple tool this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'bounded hex payload samples,' which roughly maps to the samplesHex parameter, but it does not add details about hex encoding (e.g., 0x prefix, delimiters) or what 'bounded' means (e.g., max string length). The description mostly restates the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('classify') and identifies a clear resource ('bounded hex payload samples') with enumerated output categories (HTTP, HTTP/2, TLS, DNS, SSH, WebSocket, or unknown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like binary_detect_format, which focuses on binary format detection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 you have hex payload samples to classify) and enumerates the target protocols, which serves as implicit selection criteria. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the recursive nature of the decoding and the schema-less operation, which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention output format, error behavior, or the resource limits implied by maxDepth and maxFields, leaving significant transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail, making it not fully appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description is far from complete. It does not clarify what the decoded result looks like, how maxDepth/maxFields constrain recursion, or any limits/fallbacks. More context is needed for an agent to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at dataBase64 via 'base64 input' but does not explain the purpose or effect of maxDepth or maxFields. Two of three parameters are left completely undocumented, providing minimal semantic value beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('decode'), a clear resource ('schema-less Protobuf wire fields'), and specifies the input format ('base64'). 'Schema-less' distinguishes it from schema-based proto tools like proto_export_schema or proto_infer_fields, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have base64-encoded protobuf data without a schema, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like proto_auto_detect or proto_infer_fields. No when-not-to-use or exclusion list is provided, leaving guidelines implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that strings are printable, organized by WASM section, and classified, which adds insight beyond the title. However, it does not disclose input modes (file vs base64), output format, limits, or edge cases, leaving key behaviors undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is clear and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. It earns its place by adding classification details that go beyond the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, missing parameter explanations, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool or interpret results, especially for a 4-parameter tool. It lacks essential details like return value structure and parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for its four parameters (inputPath, minLength, maxStrings, inputBase64), and the description does not mention any of them. It provides no assistance in understanding what these values mean or how they relate to the extraction behavior, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Extract printable strings') with a clear resource ('WebAssembly') and adds scope ('by WASM section' and classification of URLs/hashes/base64/paths), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wasm_inspect. This is a precise, non-redundant statement of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use when you need to extract strings from WebAssembly binaries, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like wasm_inspect or binary analysis tools. There are no exclusions or context signals to help an agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. 'Conservatively' and the proof condition give some insight, but it fails to disclose what happens when the static order cannot be proven, whether the input is mutated or a new value returned, and what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a transformation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and includes a necessary condition. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex deobfuscation tool with no output schema or annotations. The description omits the return value, error behavior, and how the result should be used, making it difficult for an agent to understand the full invocation lifecycle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes 'code' only as a string, but the description adds meaning by implying it should contain a while(true)+switch dispatcher to restore. This partially compensates for 0% schema coverage, though it does not specify the expected scope of the code or return behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('restore') and a specific resource ('canonical while(true)+switch dispatcher'), with an explicit condition ('when its static order can be proven'). This distinguishes it from generic analysis siblings like analysis_data_flow or detect_obfuscation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the condition 'when its static order can be proven', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like js_deobfuscate_pipeline or analysis_ast_match. It provides some context but no exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion function and omits details about error handling, return format, edge cases, or the effect of the maxLength constraint. This leaves the agent uncertain about what happens with malformed input or how JSON output is structured.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not explain what the tool returns, how JSON output is handled, or any behavioral nuances such as handling of invalid base64/hex input. Given the potential complexity of decoding/conversion, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for parameters, and the description only lists the supported formats without explicitly mapping them to inputEncoding/outputEncoding. The parameter names and enums are self-explanatory, and the description adds marginal context, but it does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool decodes between base64, hex, UTF-8, and JSON representations, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like binary_encode and binary_entropy_analysis by focusing on decoding/conversion rather than encoding or analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use when needing to convert a binary payload between the listed encodings. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over binary_encode or other sibling tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (entropy and byte-frequency calculation) and the 'bounded payload' constraint, but it does not describe output format, memory/performance considerations, or any edge-case behavior beyond the obvious read-only calculation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no verbosity or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is conceptually simple, but with no output schema, the return value (e.g., entropy value, byte-frequency table) is unspecified. The description covers the primary function but omits details that would help an agent anticipate the result, making it partially incomplete for a tool with no structured output definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It does not mention 'data' or 'inputEncoding'. The schema provides enums and a default for inputEncoding, which offers some semantics, but the description adds no parameter-specific meaning and fails to bridge the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and identifies a concrete resource ('Shannon entropy and byte-frequency distribution') with a scope qualifier ('bounded payload'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like binary_detect_format or proto_auto_detect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any comparison to sibling tools such as binary_detect_format or binary_decode. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects, event triggering, element visibility requirements, or error handling. The 'compatibility' label hints at being legacy but doesn't explain behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by actionable alternative guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description still lacks essential context: no return value, no error conditions, no prerequisites (e.g., element must exist), and no schema descriptions to fill in the gaps. The explicit alternative helps, but the tool remains under-specified for a robust agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'selector-based fill', which implies the selector is a CSS-style selector but doesn't explain tabId or value semantics, value format, or length constraints. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title 'Fill page field' and description 'Compatibility selector-based fill' clearly state the tool fills a field using a selector. It also distinguishes itself as a compatibility path by pointing to browser_act for new workflows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'New workflows should use browser_snapshot refs with browser_act', providing a clear when-not-to-use and a named alternative. This is strong guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the pipeline is 'conservative' and that control-flow deflattening is 'optional,' which adds some behavioral insight, but it omits details about return behavior, side effects, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, efficiently stating the tool's purpose and key behavioral attributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and partially hints at parameter behavior, but lacks usage guidelines, explicit parameter mapping, and return-value details. Given there is no output schema, the description alone doesn't fully support an agent in predicting the tool's behavior in all contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must elaborate on parameters. 'Optional control-flow deflattening' obliquely suggests the aggressive parameter but does not explicitly name it or explain how it affects the pipeline. The code parameter is not described beyond the schema's type and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description lists specific operations (constant folding, dead-branch removal, string-array decoding, control-flow deflattening) and clearly differentiates this pipeline from sibling tools that focus on individual steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this pipeline versus the individual analysis tools, and no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria. The 'optional' qualifier hints at parameter behavior but does not provide usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'bounded body representations' as a nuance, but does not explain what 'bounded' means, how the output is structured, or failure behavior. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the purpose, achieving high conciseness and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover return values and encoding usage. It identifies the parsed components but does not describe the output shape or the role of the encoding parameter, making it partially incomplete for a simple parse tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either parameter. The schema provides basics (payload string, encoding enum with default), but the description adds no semantics about how the encoding applies or what payload format is expected, leaving the agent to infer solely from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Parse') and clearly identifies the resource (HTTP/1 payload) and the exact components handled (start line, headers, bounded body). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like proto_dissect_dns and http2_frame_parse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for HTTP/1 payloads but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., http2_frame_parse for HTTP/2) or any exclusions. No when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 does add useful context about coordinate systems (one-based line, zero-based column) and the direction of mapping. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, the shape of the returned source position, or any preconditions (e.g., mapId must already be parsed).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and key details. No filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple lookup but has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. It omits what 'original source position' actually looks like (e.g., file, line, column), error handling, and any dependency on prior sourcemap parsing. Given these gaps, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'line' and 'column' by specifying that the line is one-based and the column is zero-based. However, it says nothing about 'mapId', which remains opaque. Thus it adds value for two of three parameters but not all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Map') with a specific resource ('a one-based generated line and zero-based column back to an original source position'). It distinguishes this from sibling sourcemap tools like sourcemap_fetch_and_parse or sourcemap_parse_v4 by focusing on the lookup/mapping operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sourcemap-related siblings (e.g., sourcemap_fetch_and_parse, sourcemap_coverage). It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a parsed map, or contexts where another tool is preferable. No exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the detection method (magic bytes, text signatures, entropy), which is useful, but omits output format, limitations, and side-effect information, making it moderate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 11-word sentence with no fluff. It states the core purpose immediately and every word contributes to meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and usage context, but it only states the detection approach. It lacks information on output format, supported formats, and input requirements, making it incomplete for a tool with a single required parameter and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention parameters. The names 'data' and 'inputEncoding' are somewhat self-explanatory, and the enum for inputEncoding is provided in the schema, but the description adds no semantics beyond them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Detect') and specifies the resource ('common binary formats') and method ('magic bytes, text signatures, and entropy'). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like binary_entropy_analysis or proto_auto_detect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like proto_auto_detect or binary_entropy_analysis. The usage is only implied for detecting binary formats, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool long-polls, which implies blocking behavior, and lists the event types. However, it does not explain timeout behavior, return format, whether events are consumed or persistent, or what 'after a cursor' precisely means. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the essential action without padding. It is concise and to the point, though the phrase 'after a cursor' could be clearer. It earns its place and does not include unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the response format, how to use the returned cursor, what happens on timeout, or whether events are delivered only once. Given the tool's complexity (long-polling) and lack of structured metadata, more detail is needed for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only tabId has a description). The phrase 'after a cursor' adds meaning to the afterSequence parameter, but timeoutMs (which has a default and max) is left unexplained. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but does not fully clarify all three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Long-poll tab created, updated, removed, and activated events after a cursor.' It uses a specific verb ('long-poll') and identifies the resource (tab events) with precise event types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_list_tabs (which lists current state) and browser_network_poll (which monitors network events).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: to watch for tab lifecycle events over time. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intended scenario is inferable but not stated clearly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses that executions happen in 'separate bounded Workers', which implies isolation and resource limits. However, it does not mention failure modes, return format, or security implications beyond that. It adds some value but leaves many behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and quickly conveys key details (inputs, worker isolation, comparison). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or tangential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a code-execution tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the high-level purpose but omits critical contextual details such as the return value format, how functionName is invoked, input encoding requirements, and error handling. It is insufficient for a tool that runs user-supplied code in a potentially security-sensitive manner.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'two supplied implementations' (mapping to code1 and code2) and 'identical inputs' (mapping to testInputs), but does not explain functionName or timeoutMs. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field names, providing only partial guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Run two supplied implementations against identical inputs'), identifies the resource ('two supplied implementations'), and the output ('compare outputs'). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like crypto_test_harness, which likely tests a single implementation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (comparing two implementations in separate Workers), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as crypto_test_harness or provide any exclusions. The usage is clear from the action, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action and precondition, but does not mention that stepping advances execution, may have side effects, or what happens if the session is not paused. No error conditions or state changes are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 8 words that front-loads the essential action. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain return values, failure modes, or the purpose of the optional targetSessionId parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently in a debugging flow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%. The description loosely maps to the 'direction' parameter by listing into/over/out, but it does not explain sessionId or the optional targetSessionId. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (step) with the exact directions (into, over, out) and the target (paused JavaScript frame). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debugger_resume and debugger_run_to_location.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from a paused JavaScript frame' clearly indicates the required context for using this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as resume or run-to-location, though these are implied by sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it writes unsanitized data, targets a private local artifact, and requires explicit confirmation. However, it omits details about prerequisites, persistence, or how the artifact is accessed/retrieved, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not mention return values, retrieval of the artifact, or session prerequisites. For a tool that writes a file, the lack of info about how the result is communicated is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the confirmation requirement. It does not explain sessionId, timeoutMs, or targetSessionId, leaving the agent to guess their roles. The 'Requires explicit confirmation' note adds some meaning to the `confirmed` parameter but does not compensate for the other three undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('captured unsanitized requests... to a private local HAR artifact'), distinguishing it from related network tools. It unambiguously identifies the core function of exporting a HAR file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use after network capture ('captured') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like network_get_response_body or network_intercept. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it writes bounded events to a private local artifact and that it starts or stops tracing, but lacks details on session requirements, whether traces are exclusive, performance impact, or how the artifact is accessed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. No wasted words, and it captures the essential purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how to manage the start/stop state, what 'bounded' means, or how to retrieve the artifact, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It provides no meaning for timeoutMs, categories, targetSessionId, or sessionId beyond their names. Only the action parameter's start/stop semantics are implicitly covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (start or stop CDP Tracing) and the output (write bounded events to a private local artifact). This distinguishes it from sibling performance tools like performance_get_metrics or performance_coverage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for CDP tracing sessions through its start/stop wording, but no explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or context about the tracing lifecycle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool summarizes coverage but does not explain what 'summarize' entails (e.g., counts, percentages), what output format to expect, or how it handles empty/malformed maps. The lack of return format details is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential action and object efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides the basic purpose but omits key contextual details such as the output structure and any prerequisites beyond a parsed source map. Since there is no output schema, the description should say what the summary contains; it does not. It is adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, mapId, with no description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a parsed source map' gives some context that mapId likely refers to a previously parsed source map, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's semantics or where the map ID comes from. The single, self-named parameter mitigates the gap, but the description still does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Summarize mapped original lines and sources for a parsed source map' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb (summarize) and resource (mapped original lines and sources). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sourcemap_parse_v4 (parsing), sourcemap_lookup (specific mappings), and sourcemap_diff (comparisons).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a parsed source map' implies that the tool should be used after parsing/fetching a source map, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named, so guidance is merely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description adds value by specifying the exact comparison dimensions (source membership and hashes of sourcesContent). However, it does not disclose the output structure, whether the operation has side effects (though 'compare' suggests read-only), or how edge cases like missing sourcesContent are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 14-word sentence that front-loads the main verb and avoids any filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's role, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description must explain the return value and parameter semantics to be complete. It does not describe the diff output format, nor does it clarify lineThreshold or how maps are associated with the 'locally parsed' state. These gaps leave the tool under-specified for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only alludes to the two map IDs via 'two locally parsed source maps.' The third parameter, 'lineThreshold,' is not mentioned, leaving its meaning and behavior completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Compare') and exactly what is compared ('source membership and sourcesContent hashes') between two source maps. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like sourcemap_parse_v4, which parses, and sourcemap_lookup, which looks up mappings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'locally parsed source maps' implies the prerequisite that maps must already be parsed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid using it. Usage context is hinted rather than explicitly documented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that parsing is local and that no browser session is required, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention whether code is executed, potential side effects, or return format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity. It adds some value but not comprehensive transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. There is no fluff or repetition. It is efficiently compact while conveying the core functionality and a key constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse for full understanding. It does not explain the structure of the output summary, how to use the focus parameter effectively, or how this tool relates to the many analysis siblings. It covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or 'when,' making it incomplete for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It mentions 'optional security signals' which hints at the 'focus' enum, but it does not explain what 'structure', 'business', or 'all' focus options do, nor does it describe the 'code' parameter beyond implication. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs: 'Parse supplied JavaScript locally and summarize structure, calls, complexity, globals, and optional security signals.' It distinguishes itself from sibling browser-based tools by emphasizing 'locally' and 'No browser session is required,' effectively differentiating from browser-bound alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by noting local parsing and lack of browser dependency, suggesting it's appropriate for static analysis without a session. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other analysis siblings (e.g., analysis_ast_match, js_deobfuscate_pipeline) or provide exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 lists the operations but does not explain side effects, prerequisites (e.g., an active session), or what happens when clearing all watches. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the five supported operations. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal to guide correct invocation. It lacks details on how actions map to parameters, which are essential for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no direct parameter information, and schema coverage is 0%. It only hints at 'expression' and the action list maps to the action enum, but parameters like watchId, callFrameId, and targetSessionId remain unexplained, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages watch expressions with a specific list of actions (add, remove, clear, list, evaluate). This distinguishes it from sibling debugger tools like breakpoint or debugger_evaluate, which focus on different concerns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'on a global or paused frame' provides clear context about when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it lacks the explicit when/not guidance that would merit a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 does reveal that clicks run a full CDP mouse sequence and that press supports navigation keystrokes, but it omits important behaviors such as the 'confirmed' parameter's role in potentially submitting clicks or the fallback 'selector' behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each contributing distinct information: purpose, usage preference, and action-specific behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the main actions but omits critical context around the 'confirmed' parameter for potentially submitting clicks and the 'selector' fallback for scenarios without a snapshot ref. These gaps prevent the description from being fully complete for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining what each 'kind' value does (click, fill, press, select) and emphasizing preferring 'ref' over 'selector'. This helps the agent understand the purpose of the kind enum, which lacks a schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'one atomic high-level action' and enumerates the action kinds (click, fill, press, select), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_fill, so it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers usage guidance such as 'Prefer a ref from the latest browser_snapshot' and clarifies that press supports navigation keys and select is for native controls. Yet it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_click or browser_fill, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral trait (focusing the window), but does not disclose error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., tab must exist), or how tab ID is obtained. This is somewhat transparent for a simple UI action, but gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, compact sentence that conveys the core operation and one important side effect; no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity and single parameter, the description covers the basic action and effect. However, it omits any mention of where tabId comes from or failure scenarios, making it minimally sufficient but not fully contextual.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the `tabId` parameter at all, and schema coverage is 0%. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name and the tool's purpose, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Activate'), the resource ('a Chrome tab'), and the additional effect ('focus its window'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_list_tabs or browser_close_tab.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage—activating an existing tab—but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative references. The intended context is inferable from the tool's purpose, but there is no direct comparison with sibling tools or mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 does disclose the side effect 'This activates the tab,' which is helpful. However, it does not mention what happens with the captured screenshot (e.g., return format, file path) or any permission requirements, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences front-load the primary purpose and add a key side effect. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the activation side effect. However, it omits any details about the return value or output format, which are essential for an agent to know how to consume the result, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the tabId parameter at all. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory within the schema, the description fails to reinforce its meaning or provide any additional context, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Capture the visible viewport') and the resource ('a Chrome tab'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like browser_snapshot. It also adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('visible viewport') that clarifies what is captured.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a visual capture is needed, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like browser_snapshot or browser_list_tabs. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 says 'check whether connected' but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is (e.g., boolean, message), or any side effects. This leaves important operational details unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, complete sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for understanding what it does. However, it lacks surrounding context such as its role in the browser workflow, but this is not critical for such a simple diagnostic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks browser status, specifically whether the Chrome extension and native host are connected. This is distinct from sibling tools that manage tabs, navigation, or CDP operations, so there is no ambiguity about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a prerequisite check before using other browser tools, nor does it suggest when the status check is necessary or what to do on failure.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: it blocks waiting for a pause, captures the call stack, and optionally limits scope variables to the top frame with bounding. However, it does not disclose timeout behavior, whether it resumes execution, or what happens if no pause occurs, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Wait for a pause and capture...') and includes essential qualifiers ('optional bounded top-frame') without any fluff. Every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose but omits details on return format, error handling, and prerequisite session state. It is adequate for understanding the main function but not fully complete for robust usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially maps to parameters: 'optional bounded top-frame scope variables' hints at includeScopes and scopeDepth, and 'wait' implies timeoutMs, but it does not explain sessionId or targetSessionId, and does not provide concrete parameter-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('wait' and 'capture') and resource ('call stack plus optional bounded top-frame scope variables'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like debugger_wait_for_paused (only waits) or get_call_stack (only captures stack).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a pause is expected and both stack and scope variables are needed, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds critical context that the result is unsanitized and may contain secrets, which is valuable for handling. However, it omits other behavioral details like permissions, error conditions, or resource implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence adds a crucial safety warning. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and sensitive data but misses parameter semantics for sessionId/targetSessionId and does not describe the return format or potential errors. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that requestId is a 'CDP requestId', but does not explain sessionId or targetSessionId beyond raw schema constraints. This leaves two parameters underdocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read one response body by its original CDP requestId' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_get_stats or network_intercept, which handle different network operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: when you have a CDP requestId and need the raw response body. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., network_export_har for broader captures), leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the action and output format, which implies a pure read/transformation behavior, but does not disclose potential validation, error behavior, or side-effect absence. It adds minimal context beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and output format. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one nested parameter and no output schema. The description explains the output format and indicates the input type, which is serviceable. However, it lacks explicit linkage to the inference tool and any usage context, making it only minimally complete for a tool with zero annotations and schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'inferred state machine', which clarifies the parameter's provenance and general type, but does not explain the nested structure (states, transitions, initialState) or the semantics of fields like count. The property names are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Render') and a specific resource ('an inferred state machine') with a precise output format ('Mermaid stateDiagram-v2 text'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like proto_infer_state_machine (which infers, this visualizes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'inferred state machine' implies it should be used on the output of an inference tool (likely proto_infer_state_machine), but no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison is given. It is clear enough to infer the context, but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 warns that results may contain secrets or private browsing data, which is a critical transparency element. It also clearly states the lack of field sanitization, but does not mention pagination behavior or whether polling is incremental. Overall, it provides valuable context beyond the bare schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, with the first stating the core function and the second providing a critical safety caveat. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary details are included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how polling works (e.g., cursor semantics), or that sessionId is required. The tool has four parameters, and the description offers no guidance on how to use them or what to expect in response, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (limit, timeoutMs), but 'afterCursor' and the required 'sessionId' are not explained in context. The description adds no parameter-level information, making it difficult for an agent to understand how to correctly set these fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads original CDP event methods, source targets, and params without field sanitization, specifying both the verb and resource. The phrase 'without field sanitization' differentiates it from sanitized alternatives like browser_watch_events. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for accessing raw CDP events, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like browser_watch_events or browser_network_poll. It also does not mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required sessionId in the schema. The guidance is 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is locally cached (potentially stale) and that the call is non-blocking. While it doesn't address edge cases like when no paused state exists, the key non-blocking and cached behaviors are clearly communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence (13 words) with the verb front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description leaves significant gaps. The agent understands the tool's purpose but lacks guidance on parameter usage, error scenarios, or the structure of returned frames, making confident invocation difficult.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description mentions no parameters. It fails to explain the meaning of sessionId or targetSessionId or how they affect the returned data, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: 'locally cached pause reason and frames'. The qualifier 'without waiting for new events' distinguishes this from blocking pause-wait tools like debugger_wait_for_paused, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without waiting for new events' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need immediate, cached state without blocking. Though it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the contrast with waiting is evident and effectively implies the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search modes (literal or regex) which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention read-only status, default behavior like case sensitivity, or result limits, which limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, direct and front-loaded. It includes the essential purpose and method without any filler, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It lacks details about return format, what collectionId refers to, how maxResults behaves, and other essential usage semantics needed for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains query and regex via 'by literal text or regular expression' but does not clarify collectionId, maxResults, or caseSensitive. With five parameters and no schema descriptions, this is an insufficient compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Search script sources already collected in this MCP process by literal text or regular expression.' This clearly identifies the action (search), resource (script sources already collected), and method (literal/regex). It distinguishes from sibling collect_code by emphasizing already collected scripts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after scripts have been collected in this MCP process, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (Debugger.scriptParsed events and script tails) which gives some insight, but fails to disclose whether the tool attaches listeners, waits, is one-shot, or returns results. The waitMs parameter hints at a wait behavior, but the description doesn't explain this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and object. It is concise, informative, and free of redundant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and prerequisites. It doesn't mention what is returned (e.g., a list of discovered URLs) or any session requirements. The description is too sparse for a tool with 3 parameters and no further specs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (sessionId, waitMs, targetSessionId). The mention of Debugger.scriptParsed events implies sessionId relates to a debugger session, but no explicit meaning is added. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Discover') and resource ('sourceMappingURL values') with a precise source ('Debugger.scriptParsed events and collected script tails'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sourcemap_fetch_and_parse or sourcemap_coverage, which target different aspects of source map handling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to discover sourceMappingURL values from browser debugger events and script tails. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear to avoid confusion with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses two behavioral traits: transforms are deterministic and the diff is bounded. It also implies a non-destructive preview operation. However, it does not detail error handling or behavior with invalid transforms, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, scope, and return type efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two parameters, but the description omits important context such as how the diff is formatted, whether transforms are applied in order, or any prerequisites. It covers the core preview behavior but leaves room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain that 'code' is JavaScript source or what 'transforms' actually does beyond the name. The schema's enum helps, but the description adds no parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Preview' and clearly identifies the resource ('supported deterministic JavaScript transforms') and the output ('bounded line diff'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ast_transform_apply (which applies) and ast_transform_chain (which chains).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a pre-application preview use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of ast_transform_apply, ast_transform_chain, or transform_workbench. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral constraint: it only closes tabs created by the bridge in the current session. However, it does not disclose what happens if the tab is not bridge-created, error behaviors, or side effects such as whether the tab is permanently closed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the action and condition. It is concise with no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and the key condition. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and how to determine tabId, making it moderately complete but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; the description does not mention the tabId parameter or explain what it represents or how to obtain it. While tabId is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Close' and identifies the resource 'tab' with a clear scope: 'only when it was created by Chrome Agent Bridge in the current extension session.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like open, activate, or navigate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'only when it was created by Chrome Agent Bridge in the current extension session' provides a clear condition for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions beyond this condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It usefully notes that execution happens 'in a bounded Worker and vm context' and explicitly warns that it is 'defense in depth, not a security sandbox.' This adds valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not cover failure modes or output behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second provides a crucial security caveat. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain return values and usage nuances. It covers the purpose and the execution context but omits what happens to the function's output, how to construct the code, and any relationship to crypto extraction. The schema fills structural gaps but the description leaves some contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It only touches on testInputs via 'deterministic string inputs' and leaves code, functionName, and timeoutMs unexplained. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Run a supplied function against deterministic string inputs in a bounded Worker and vm context.' The verb 'Run' and the resource 'supplied function' are specific, and the mention of 'deterministic string inputs' and 'bounded Worker and vm context' distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_compare, which focuses on comparison rather than execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to test a supplied function with deterministic inputs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on how it relates to sibling tools such as crypto_compare or js_deobfuscate_pipeline, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds useful behavioral traits: 'deterministic', 'static', and 'heuristic', which signal that it does not execute code and produces repeatable results. It also lists specific risk categories. However, it does not explicitly state whether the scan is read-only or describe the return format, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Run a deterministic static heuristic scan') and enumerates specific risk categories. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter) but has no annotations and no output schema. The description explains what the tool scans for but does not mention what it returns (e.g., a report, list of findings, severity scores). For a security scan, return-value information is important, so the description is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only the parameter name 'code' with length constraints (0% description coverage). The description implicitly indicates that 'code' is the JavaScript to be scanned, but adds no details about expected format, encoding, or how the scan uses the parameter beyond the obvious. It meets the baseline but does not compensate much for the schema's lack of description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('static heuristic scan for dynamic code, injection sinks, weak randomness, hard-coded credentials, and related risks'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like detect_obfuscation or detect_crypto, which target narrower concerns. The scope is explicit and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a broad security scan for JavaScript code, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or complementary tools. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses resource release and the conditional detachment of Chrome, which is critical side-effect behavior. It doesn't cover idempotency or error scenarios, but for a stop operation this is above-average transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first states the action, the second clarifies a boundary condition. Every phrase serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a stop operation, the description covers the core action and a meaningful side effect. It doesn't mention prerequisites or return values, but the sibling tools imply the usage flow and the complexity is low. The description is reasonably complete for its context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single required parameter, sessionId, with no description (coverage 0%). The description never mentions sessionId or clarifies what it refers to. It relies entirely on the tool name and title to infer that sessionId identifies the network monitor, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('a network monitor') and adds a precise behavioral caveat about Chrome detachment. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like browser_network_start and browser_network_poll by indicating this is the teardown operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. The ownership caveat ('detaches Chrome only when the monitor owns the attachment; a reused Raw session remains attached') gives some context for a specific condition, but it doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over network_poll or cdp_detach. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 does add useful context: 'local deterministic heuristics' implies no network calls and reproducible results, and 'common obfuscation signals' sets expectations of coverage. However, it omits key behavioral traits such as the exact output format (e.g., a numeric score, boolean, structured report), error handling on invalid input, and any side effects. This leaves uncertainty about what the tool actually returns and how to interpret the 'score'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Score supplied JavaScript') and then efficiently specifies the scope and method. It contains no filler, redundant phrases, or unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it exceptionally well-structured for a quick read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so a compact description can be adequate. The description covers the input type (JavaScript), the operation (scoring obfuscation signals), and the methodology (local deterministic heuristics). However, it lacks information about the return value structure, which is critical for an agent to interpret results. Without an output schema, this omission leaves the tool's behavior incomplete from the agent's perspective. Given the simplicity, a brief note on the output format would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only a 'code' string with length constraints and zero description coverage. The description compensates by specifying that the parameter is 'supplied JavaScript', clarifying that the input is raw JavaScript code rather than a path or other representation. It also indicates the parameter is intended for 'scoring', implying the input is the code to analyze. This is a meaningful semantic addition, though it does not elaborate on formatting or other constraints beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Score supplied JavaScript for common obfuscation signals' — a specific verb (score), resource (JavaScript), and purpose (obfuscation detection). It distinguishes itself from siblings like js_deobfuscate_pipeline or analysis_deflat_control_flow by focusing on heuristic scoring rather than transformation or deep structural analysis. The addition of 'using local deterministic heuristics' further clarifies the approach, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for scoring JavaScript obfuscation signals but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or indicate whether this is a preliminary triage step versus a deeper analysis tool. The phrase 'local deterministic heuristics' hints at a lightweight, offline check, but this is not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools like js_deobfuscate_pipeline or analysis_security_scan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the fingerprint is deterministic and the style is Akamai, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format, behavior on invalid input, or the exact structure of the 'preface frames' input.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every token contributes to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter calculation tool, the description covers the core purpose and input source, but it lacks information about the output shape, any constraints beyond the schema's maxLength, and edge-case behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should have clarified the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by linking inputHex to 'captured HTTP/2 preface frames', but it does not specify the exact encoding (e.g., whether it is plain hex of the raw bytes) or whether it includes the connection preface and initial frames. It partially compensates but leaves ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Calculate' and clearly identifies the output as an 'Akamai-style deterministic fingerprint' and the input as 'captured HTTP/2 preface frames'. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like http2_frame_parse or proto_fingerprint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the use case: use when you have HTTP/2 preface frames and need an Akamai-style fingerprint. It gives clear context but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the monitor is metadata-only, never returns headers or bodies, and that rawSessionId exists to avoid a second debugger attachment. These are important, non-obvious behaviors. It does not describe the return format or the event queueing lifecycle, which would be useful, but the most critical constraints are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, each adding distinct value: the core purpose, the rawSessionId reuse tip, and the metadata-only limitation. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core nature (metadata-only, tab-scoped) but omits details about the filtering/limit parameters and the workflow with network_poll/network_stop. It is adequate for understanding the tool's role but not complete for effective use of all parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only implicitly explains tabId ('tab-scoped') and rawSessionId ('reuse that Raw CDP attachment'). The other parameters (urlMode, maxBytes, maxEvents, urlIncludes, resourceTypes) are not mentioned at all, leaving their purpose and effects unclear. The description does not add meaning to the majority of the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start a tab-scoped, metadata-only Chrome network monitor.' It clearly distinguishes itself from network_poll and network_stop by focusing on the start action, and the 'metadata-only' limitation sets it apart from tools that capture bodies. The scope (tab-scoped) is also explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete usage guideline: 'Pass rawSessionId to reuse that Raw CDP attachment instead of attaching a second debugger.' It implies when to use this tool (start monitoring) versus the siblings (poll/stop) through the start/stop/poll workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for filtering or event handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently warns that 'captured Raw events may expose credentials and private data,' which is critical for an unrestricted CDP session. It also implies the session is full-access ('unrestricted') and mentions a 'sanitized network projection' when captureEvents=false, adding useful caveats beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second gives a critical usage tip. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action and scope. No filler or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an attach tool, the description covers the key risk (exposure of private data), the main mode (raw events vs. sanitized projection), and the unrestricted nature. It does not describe the return value, but given there is no output schema and this is a session-setup tool, the provided warnings and parameter guidance give enough context for safe use. A small gap is the lack of explicit mention that a separate session ID is returned, but this is inferable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only partially explains captureEvents by linking it to the security tradeoff. tabId, maxBytes, and maxEvents are not described in the text, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. This fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb 'Attach' and names the resource ('unrestricted Chrome DevTools Protocol session to one tab'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like browser_cdp_send, which sends commands, and browser_cdp_detach, which removes a session. The mention of 'unrestricted' conveys the tool's scope of power, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides actionable guidance: 'Set captureEvents=false when only commands plus a sanitized network projection are needed,' which helps the agent choose parameter values based on the use case. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., browser_cdp_send), but the conditional recommendation is clear context for when to reduce event capture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it only reads visible text and interactive elements, refs are short-lived, and snapshots become stale after actions. This goes beyond a generic read description and informs the agent of the need for fresh snapshots, reducing misuse risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, tightly packed with essential information: what it reads, the ref behavior, and a usage directive. No filler or redundant statements, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose, usage pattern, and a key caveat (fresh snapshot needed). It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but with no output schema, the description still gives enough context to use the tool correctly. Slight gaps remain about the nature of 'semantic interactive elements' and how refs are used in subsequent actions, but overall it is contextually adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters tabId and maxChars. The schema provides types and defaults, but the description adds no meaning about their purpose or usage. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving both parameters underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: reading visible page text and semantic interactive elements. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_screenshot (visual capture) and browser_status (status check) by specifying exactly what content is retrieved and mentioning short-lived refs, which is a unique aspect of this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage instructions: use a ref with browser_act and take a fresh snapshot after every action. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, the guidance is clear about when to invoke it (after actions to get current state), which is sufficient for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behaviors (hex input, compressed name support, common address handling), but it omits output format, error behavior, and edge-case limits, leaving significant gaps for a parsing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the core action, input format, and notable features without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
DNS parsing is complex, and the description is brief. It covers input and special features (compressed names/common addresses) but lacks information about the return structure or failure modes, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description for the only parameter, so the description compensates by clarifying that payloadHex must be a hex string and that it represents a DNS payload. This is essential semantic information absent from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Parse') and clearly identifies the resource ('RFC 1035-style DNS payload') and input format ('from hex'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling dissectors like proto_dissect_http by focusing on DNS and mentioning compressed names and addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when a hex-encoded DNS payload needs parsing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the narrow scope and unique sibling context make the intended usage obvious enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by noting it's a 'local dependency-free structural parser', indicating no network dependencies and a read-only inspection. However, it does not explicitly state error behavior or output format, but the 'inspect' verb implies non-destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, entirely front-loaded with the verb and object, listing the key inspected components. No redundant or filler words are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose and input mechanism generally, and the mention of sections, imports, exports, names, and producers hints at the expected output. Given the absence of an output schema, it could provide more detail on return values or error handling, but for a simple inspection tool it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 2 parameters (inputPath, inputBase64) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters or their relationship, so agents must rely on property names alone. This is a significant gap, as the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as inspecting a WASM module's structural elements (sections, imports, exports, names, producers) using a local dependency-free parser. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like wasm_string_extract, which focus on string extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context of what the tool does, implying its use for structural analysis of WASM modules. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude other use cases, lacking direct when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 explicitly discloses two behavioral traits: there is no method allowlist (any CDP method can be sent) and no response sanitization (raw responses returned). It also clarifies a prerequisite: targetSessionId references a child target previously attached within this Raw CDP session. This goes beyond the schema and gives important transparency for an unrestricted command tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, immediately stating the core function and the one non-obvious parameter usage. There is no filler, and every word adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is largely complete for a raw low-level CDP tool. It explains the unrestricted nature, the child-target parameter, and the session context. There is no output schema, so the description does not detail return values, but 'no response sanitization' implies the raw CDP response is returned. Given the complexity and the sibling tools (e.g., browser_cdp_attach), the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could briefly mention the source of sessionId.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for targetSessionId ('use for a child target previously attached') and implies params is JSON via 'JSON params'. However, sessionId and method are not explained beyond their names and the tool title. The description does not fully elucidate all four parameters, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 any CDP method and JSON params'. It specifies the verb (send) and resource (CDP command), and explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting there is 'no method allowlist or response sanitization', marking it as the raw/low-level option in the browser_* family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use the tool: for raw CDP commands that bypass normal restrictions, and specifically instructs to use targetSessionId for child targets attached within the current Raw CDP session. It does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'without a method allowlist or response sanitization' phrasing implies it is for cases outside the curated sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the qualifier 'scriptable' adds nuance, but it does not explain what 'scriptable' means or what information is returned. It is not misleading but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action and immediately provides a usage context, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could specify what information is returned for each tab (e.g., IDs, titles), but this is a minor gap for a listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per guidelines. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and there is no ambiguity in the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('current scriptable Chrome tabs'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like browser_activate_tab or browser_close_tab, which act on tabs rather than listing them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The instruction 'Use before selecting a tab ID' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context implies it is a prerequisite for other tab-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chrome-agent-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/escapeWu/chrome-agent-bridge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/escapeWu/chrome-agent-bridge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chrome-agent-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/escapeWu/chrome-agent-bridge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/escapeWu/chrome-agent-bridge)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/escapeWu/chrome-agent-bridge'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server