profile_cookies

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 that cookies may come from a running browser via CDP or from local files, which is beyond the schema. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the profile is not running or files are unavailable, or any permission/state requirements.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the clarifying parenthetical about sources adds valuable information without bloat.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the action, the target, and both access methods. It omits details about return format and failure behavior, but these are less critical given the simplicity of the tool and the fully documented schema.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that profile_id refers to 'a browser profile' and explains the source modes, but it does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'cookies from a browser profile', making the tool's function unmistakable. It also details two distinct data sources (running browser via CDP, or local files), which clearly separates it from all sibling tools focused on groups, proxies, browsers, and profile management.

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 the tool is for retrieving cookies and mentions the two possible sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. For a tool with no cookie-related sibling, the usage context is somewhat inferred rather than explicitly defined.

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