chrome-devtools-mcp-mux

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, suggesting a safe read operation, which aligns with the description's focus on selection. The description adds context about setting a page as context for future calls, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether this affects other pages, requires specific page states, or has side effects like UI changes. With annotations covering safety, the description provides some value but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on how the context is used, what happens if no page is selected, or interaction with siblings. With annotations providing safety info, it's complete enough for simple use but could be more informative for an agent.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the 'bringToFront' parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but since there's only one optional parameter and high coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's focus on context setting indirectly relates to the parameter's effect, slightly enhancing understanding, warranting a score of 4.

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 clearly states the action ('select a page') and the purpose ('as a context for future tool calls'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pages' (which lists pages) or 'new_page' (which creates pages), missing the opportunity to clarify that this tool is for setting an active page context rather than listing or creating.

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 provides minimal guidance by implying usage for future tool calls, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pages' to see available pages or 'new_page' to create one. No explicit when-not or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent with unclear context for tool selection.

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