chrome-debug-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('resume execution') but lacks details on what happens upon invocation—e.g., whether it continues until the next breakpoint, if it affects debugger state, or if there are side effects like clearing logs. For a debugger tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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—'Resume execution in the debugger' directly conveys the core action without fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of debugger operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'resume' entails (e.g., continuous execution vs. step-based), potential outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool in a debugging context with no structured support, more detail is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 'Resume execution in the debugger' clearly states the verb ('resume') and resource ('execution in the debugger'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'pause_on_load', 'step_over', and 'set_breakpoint' by focusing on continuation rather than interruption or stepping. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'reload' might also resume execution in some contexts), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that execution must be paused first), exclusions (e.g., not to use it if debugging is inactive), or direct alternatives like 'step_over' for controlled progression. Without such context, an agent might misuse it in inappropriate scenarios.

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