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 adds useful context about remote debugging enablement and troubleshooting for missing executables, but it doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, potential side effects (e.g., session loss), or error handling beyond the CHROME_PATH advice. This is a moderate effort but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences that are front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second clarifies scope, and the third provides troubleshooting advice. There is minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some troubleshooting but misses details on parameters, return values, and full behavioral context, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain the 'proxy_server' parameter at all. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate by adding meaning for the parameter, leaving it undocumented. The baseline is adjusted downward due to this omission.

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 ('restarts') and resource ('managed Chrome instance'), specifying it enables remote debugging. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_chrome' by indicating this starts or restarts Chrome, not just stopping it. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'reload', which might be a closer alternative for refreshing a page.

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 some context by mentioning it can start a new instance or restart an existing one, and advises on troubleshooting with CHROME_PATH. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reload' for page refreshes or 'stop_chrome' for termination, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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