chrome-debug-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits critical details: it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., page navigation, form submission), error handling (e.g., if the selector doesn't exist), or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic click.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential 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 complexity of a DOM interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what happens after the click (e.g., page changes, errors), return values, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'navigate' for page loading). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'selector' parameter. The description implies the parameter is used for targeting but doesn't provide additional context like selector examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 states the action ('clicks') and the target ('an element in the DOM using a CSS selector'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fill_input' or 'scroll', which also interact with DOM elements, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, such as 'fill_input' for input fields or 'scroll' for navigation. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded page) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the action alone.

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