get_cookies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read and scopes results to the current page, but it does not describe how a missing cookie is handled, the structure of returned cookie objects, or whether domain/path filtering applies. This is acceptable for a simple getter but omits useful behavioral details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary behavior and the conditional behavior without any filler. 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.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation scenarios (all vs. by name) and scopes to the current page. It could additionally specify return format or missing-cookie behavior, but these are minor gaps for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents the 'name' parameter as 'Cookie name (optional — omit for all)' with 100% coverage. The description's 'all cookies... or a single cookie by name' essentially restates that semantic without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('cookies'), and clearly states the two modes: all cookies for the current page or a single cookie by name. This distinguishes get_cookies from sibling set/delete cookie tools, which involve different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_local_storage or get_session_storage. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual conditions. The only implicit usage signal is that the tool reads cookies, which is not enough to guide selection among storage-related siblings.

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