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 mentions 'search all parsed scripts' and 'get line and column number,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like performance impact, rate limits, error handling, or what 'parsed scripts' entails (e.g., scope, freshness). For a 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality: 'Search all parsed scripts for a specific text/query and get the line and column number for setting breakpoints.' It's front-loaded with the main action and outcome, with no redundant words or fluff, making it highly concise and effective.

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 (a search tool with debugging implications), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of matches, error cases), performance considerations, or how results integrate with sibling tools like 'set_breakpoint.' For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 ('query') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds some context by stating it's for 'a specific text/query,' but doesn't explain the query format (e.g., regex, case sensitivity), expected input types, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description compensates minimally, failing to fully document the parameter's meaning.

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: 'Search all parsed scripts for a specific text/query and get the line and column number for setting breakpoints.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('parsed scripts'), and outcome ('get line and column number for setting breakpoints'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspect_dom' or 'evaluate_js', which might also involve script interaction, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 mentions 'setting breakpoints,' which hints at debugging contexts, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like 'set_breakpoint' or 'remove_breakpoint.' Without explicit when/when-not instructions, it falls short of higher scores.

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