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 and discloses key behavioral traits: it 'maintains active listening for up to 30 seconds of inactivity before automatically unhooking itself,' explaining duration and auto-cleanup. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and behavioral details in two efficient sentences with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete: it covers purpose, usage, and some behavior but lacks parameter explanations and output details. It's adequate for basic use but has clear gaps in parameter semantics and return values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'username' and 'password' are for (proxy credentials), the purpose of 'prewarm_url' or 'resource_type', or any parameter constraints, failing to address the undocumented parameters.

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 with specific verbs ('Enables proxy authentication') and resources ('using the Fetch domain'), and distinguishes it from siblings by addressing a unique Chrome proxy authentication scenario not covered by other tools like restart_chrome or navigate.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this after restarting Chrome with a proxy-server if your proxy requires authentication.' This specifies when to use it (post-restart with proxy auth) and implies when not to (if no proxy auth is needed), with clear context relative to sibling tools.

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