CloakMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining behavioral traits: it discloses that anti-detection is ON by default, describes what the browser passes (Cloudflare Turnstile, reCAPTCHA, etc.), and provides practical warnings about aggressive sites needing headed mode. It doesn't cover rate limits or error handling, but gives substantial operational 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 appropriately sized for a complex tool with 15 parameters. It's well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation. Some sentences could be tighter (e.g., the CloakBrowser capabilities list is detailed but necessary), but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with critical 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 complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, how to configure it, and provides practical guidance. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation. It could benefit from more sibling differentiation and error handling info, but covers most essential context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for every parameter. Each parameter gets clear usage guidance, examples, defaults, and practical advice (e.g., 'Residential recommended' for proxy, fallback behaviors for viewport). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Launch a stealth CloakBrowser instance') and resource ('CloakBrowser'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cloak_navigate or cloak_check. It provides technical details about what CloakBrowser is (source-patched Chromium) and what anti-detection capabilities it has, making the purpose highly specific.

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 implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., 'Some aggressive sites need headed mode'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cloak_new_page or cloak_back. It provides practical guidance within parameters but lacks overall usage context relative to siblings.

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