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 describes key behaviors: recording a trace, calculating metrics, identifying Long Tasks, and optional cache disabling for cold starts. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the page is unresponsive during profiling, leaving some behavioral 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 in the first sentence, followed by optional features. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the tool's function, and the second explains a key use case—with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 for a performance profiling tool. It covers the purpose and key behaviors but lacks details on output format, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded). This is adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning cache disabling in the context of cold starts, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Record and analyze a performance trace') and resources ('page'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on performance profiling rather than navigation, interaction, or debugging tasks. It explicitly mentions Core Web Vitals and Long Tasks analysis, which differentiates it from general performance metrics tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('to simulate a cold start' with cache disabled) and implies usage for performance analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., get_performance_metrics), which prevents a perfect score.

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