browser_get_storage

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 scope (both storage types, all items, current origin), and 'inspect' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However it says nothing about value truncation, size limits, or whether sensitive values are returned verbatim.

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 with no filler; every word contributes to identifying what is dumped and where it comes from.

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 no-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is read but not the shape of the dump (key/value pairs, counts, ordering) or any failure mode when no origin/page is active. Adequate but leaves a gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'for the current origin' scoping is the only semantic note needed and it is present.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect/dump) plus the exact resources (localStorage and sessionStorage) and scope (current origin). This clearly separates it from browser_get_cookies and browser_get_indexeddb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 alternatives such as browser_get_cookies, browser_get_indexeddb, or browser_eval, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page/origin). The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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