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 mentions fetching HTML but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires an active browser session, if it's read-only (implied but not stated), potential size limits for large documents, or what happens if the query isn't found. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and briefly mentions the optional snippet functionality, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., HTML string, error handling), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like performance implications for large DOMs or dependencies on page state. For a tool that fetches potentially large data, this is inadequate.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by implying that 'query' triggers snippet mode versus full HTML fetch, but doesn't elaborate on semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 ('fetch') and resource ('HTML of the current document or a snippet'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes between fetching the entire document vs. a snippet, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'capture_screenshot' or 'get_console_logs' that also retrieve page content in different formats.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'capture_screenshot' (visual), 'get_console_logs' (console output), and 'search_scripts' (script content), the description doesn't indicate that this is specifically for raw HTML retrieval, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring a loaded page.

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