List CDP targets (BrowserWindows, webviews, workers)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates this is a read-only listing operation and explains that workers are included. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, session requirements, or limits on the number of targets.

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

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

The description is highly concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose, provide a critical output interpretation hint, and mention workers. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description completes the picture by explaining output types and downstream usage. It could mention pagination or error cases but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining how to interpret results (type field mapping to BrowserWindows) and how to use output ids for other tools. This enriches the parameter meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool enumerates CDP targets from a session's debug port, distinguishes between 'page' types (BrowserWindows) and workers, and provides actionable guidance (passing ids to evaluate/navigate/screenshot). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_apps' and action tools.

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

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

The description implicitly tells when to use this tool (to list targets before using evaluate/navigate/screenshot) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. No explicit usage boundaries or prerequisites are given.

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