chrome-debug-mcp

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 the tool 'Returns a base64 encoded PNG image,' which adds some context about the output format. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether it pauses page execution, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits), error conditions, or performance implications. The description is minimal and does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 and front-loaded: it states the core action in the first sentence and the return format in the second. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and output format but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description does not fully compensate for these gaps, resulting in a score that reflects its partial completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain parameter interactions or default behaviors). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Capture a screenshot of the current page.' It specifies the verb ('capture') and resource ('screenshot of the current page'), making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'inspect_dom' or 'get_performance_metrics', which serve different purposes but are not direct alternatives for capturing screenshots.

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 does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., requiring a page to be loaded), exclusions, or comparisons with other tools. While the context implies it's for capturing visual content, there is no explicit usage context or reference to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when this is appropriate.

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