get_cookies

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the single most important behavioral trait: the return value is equivalent to login credentials and must not be shared or logged. It omits finer details (read-only nature is only implied by 取, no mention of permissions, storage location, or rate limits), but for a one-parameter read tool this is substantial added context.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding: the action and scope come first, and the safety warning follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what it returns (a Cookie), for which domain, and the critical sensitivity caveat. Only minor gaps remain, such as return format or how a missing/expired cookie is surfaced.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the domain parameter is already documented with its default. The description only restates '指定域名' without adding format, validation, or defaulting behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb+resource and scope: retrieve the Cookie for a specified domain. The resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like get_csrf_token or get_login_info. However, it never explicitly routes the agent against those adjacent tools, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other credential-adjacent siblings (get_csrf_token, get_login_info) or on preconditions. The only guidance given is a handling warning about not pasting the result into chats or logs, which is a caution rather than a selection rule.

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