CloakMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that scrolling returns an 'updated snapshot,' hinting at a visual update, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., if scrolling affects page state), or error handling. For a mutation tool (scrolling changes view) with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and outcome. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more cohesive (e.g., merging the Args into the main text).

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., scrolling effects, error cases) and usage guidelines. For a tool in a browser automation context with siblings, it should do more to be fully helpful.

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. It lists parameters (page_id, direction, amount) and provides some semantics: direction accepts 'up' or 'down', and amount is in pixels. However, it doesn't explain page_id context (e.g., from cloak_list_pages) or constraints (e.g., amount limits). With 3 parameters and low schema coverage, this adds value but incompletely.

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 tool's purpose: 'Scroll the page. Returns an updated snapshot.' This specifies the verb ('scroll') and resource ('page'), and distinguishes it from siblings like cloak_navigate (navigation) or cloak_screenshot (capturing images). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all scrolling-related tools if any existed, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open page), exclusions (e.g., not for scrolling within elements), or compare it to siblings like cloak_read_page or cloak_snapshot for similar outcomes. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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