read_indexeddb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses pagination behavior, JSON-safe serialization, active-tab origin scoping, and limit defaults/maxima, but it does not state permissions, error handling, empty-store behavior, or the shape of returned records.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by essential parameter semantics. There is no filler, and the default/max details earn their place because the schema does not document them.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should more fully explain what is returned and how to continue paging. It implies nextCursor exists via the cursor parameter and gives good input semantics, but the return payload and edge-case behavior remain underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it marks db and store as required, explains cursor as a number offset from a previous call's nextCursor, and gives limit's default (200) and maximum (1000). The only gap is that db and store are not explicitly described as database and object-store names beyond their labels.

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: a cursor-paged, JSON-safe read of an IndexedDB object store on the active tab's origin. It is clearly distinguishable from write/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with read-only siblings such as read_storage or list_storage_areas.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'cursor-paged read' and the cursor parameter referring to a previous call's nextCursor, which suggests iterative paging. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternative read tools like read_storage, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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