read_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the non-obvious privacy gate (values redacted to "<redacted>" without explicit user consent) and that the call still succeeds without consent. It omits permission requirements and any limits on how many cookies are returned, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste: the scope and return fields come first, then the one parameter's semantics and its consent caveat. Nothing is repeated from structured fields and nothing extraneous is included.

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?

A read tool with one optional param, no output schema, and no annotations; the description covers the resource scope, the return fields, and the consent behavior, which is nearly everything needed. Minor gaps remain around required extension permissions and any result-size or pagination behavior.

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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that rawCookieValues is a boolean gate whose effect is redacted vs. raw values and that consent is required for raw values. It effectively implies the default (redacted) behavior.

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 and resource ('Read all cookies') plus a clear scope ('visible to the active tab') and enumerates the returned fields (name, domain, path, secure, httpOnly, sameSite, session). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like read_storage or read_indexeddb, but the resource noun and tab-scoping make the distinction inferable.

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 explains the consent precondition for rawCookieValues, which is genuinely useful usage context, but it never says when to choose this tool over read_storage, read_indexeddb, or export_state. Usage is implied by the resource rather than stated.

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