chromium_parse_cookies_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context (legacy vs modern SQLite locations) but does not disclose potential encryption handling or error behavior. This is a moderate level of disclosure.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The profile path example and storage location notes are directly useful and justify their inclusion.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

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

The description covers the core purpose, path hint, and storage compatibility, and an output schema exists to document return values. It lacks explicit usage differentiation from the decrypt_cookies tool, which is a minor gap for a well-scoped parse tool.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a typical profile path example and notes on storage locations, but does not further elaborate on the parameter formats or semantics.

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?

Clearly states it parses Chromium cookies from a browser profile, with a concrete verb and resource. The mention of the typical profile path and support for legacy and modern SQLite locations distinguishes it from sibling tools like chromium_decrypt_cookies_tool.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for parsing cookie SQLite files, including a typical profile path and path variations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the decrypt_cookies sibling, leaving the when-to-use differentiation implicit.

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