devtools_storage

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that operations can read or write live browser storage, but it omits side effects of set/delete (e.g., altering page state, invalidating cookies/sessions), return behavior, or per-tab isolation. The default active-tab behavior is only in the schema, not the description.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource; the DevTools analogy is a useful orientation and adds no fluff. No word is wasted.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It lacks return shape for list/get, mutation caveats, and routing guidance against browser_evaluate, leaving an agent to infer important operational details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it enumerates storage types already covered in storageType and does not explain action/key/value semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('Read or write') and a precise resource ('browser storage for a tab') and enumerates localStorage/sessionStorage/cookies, making it distinct from sibling devtools_* and browser_* tools without needing the schema.

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 DevTools Application panel analogy implies the intended use, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over browser_evaluate or other devtools tools, nor any exclusions. It is implied rather than stated.

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