inspector_raw

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 says the result is returned, but does not disclose that raw protocol commands may mutate page state, require specific permissions, or have destructive/irreversible effects. A raw escape hatch needs stronger safety and side-effect 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately communicates the core action and gives useful examples.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 40% schema description coverage across five parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain parameter expectations, side effects, or return shape enough for an agent to invoke arbitrary protocol commands safely and correctly.

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 coverage is only 40%, and the description adds meaning only for the method parameter via examples. It does not explain the params object shape, timeout semantics, or how method and params interact, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send any Web Inspector protocol command to the page and return the result. The examples (Page.getCookies, DOM.getDocument, Debugger.enable) make the scope concrete, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like js or dom.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this raw command tool versus higher-level siblings such as js, dom, or inspector_pages. The only implied usage is that it accepts arbitrary protocol commands, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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