inspect_storage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions identifying tracking cookies and calculating cookie size, but does not disclose potential side effects, read-only guarantees, or limitations. It does not state whether any storage data is modified or cleared, which is a notable gap for an inspection tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no redundant wording. Every sentence adds value, second sentence provides useful detail about tracking cookies and size calculation.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at the return format, but it does not. It also lacks usage constraints or edge-case behavior. However, the tool's purpose is clear and the parameter set is minimal, so it is not severely incomplete, but there are gaps.

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 has a single parameter (session_id) with 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter itself, but since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'inspect' and the resources 'cookies, localStorage, and sessionStorage' for the current page. It goes beyond a simple restatement by adding specific outcomes ('Identifies tracking cookies and calculates total cookie size'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_page_state or export_har.

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 ('for the current page') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There's no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so while the context is clear, the guidance is not explicit.

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