chrome-debug-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'EXPERIMENTAL', which is a behavioral trait (potential instability). It mentions retrieving events from the browser but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no events exist. More context on output format or error handling would improve this.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating purpose and context, another giving usage example. It is front-loaded with key information ('EXPERIMENTAL', retrieve events) and avoids redundancy. Slight improvement could come from tighter phrasing, but it earns its place efficiently.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, return format, or dependencies. For a tool with 2 parameters and experimental nature, more context on output (e.g., event structure) would enhance completeness, though it meets minimum viability.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (filter_method and limit) well. The description adds minimal value by referencing filter_method in an example (Target.targetCreated) and implying limit usage, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'events captured from the browser', specifying they are 'not handled by other specialized listeners'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_console_logs and get_network_logs by mentioning those as alternatives, though not explicitly naming them. However, it could be more specific about what 'custom events' entail beyond examples.

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 clear context on when to use: for events not handled by specialized listeners, with an example (Target.targetCreated). It implies alternatives like network or console listeners but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, such as for standard logs or metrics.

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