send_cdp_command

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 thoroughly describes side effects ('may modify page state, DOM, or trigger navigation'), auth requirements ('subject to local-only restrictions if enabled'), prerequisites ('requires knowledge of CDP protocol; active Chrome connection'), and return values ('raw CDP command response as JSON'). This covers critical behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with key information (experimental nature, purpose, side effects). Every sentence adds value, such as prerequisites and alternatives, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details (e.g., merging side effects and auth requirements).

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 (experimental, advanced use cases) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits (side effects, auth, prerequisites), and return values, providing sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively despite the missing structured data.

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 already documents both parameters (method and params) with constraints and interactions. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as mentioning 'Page.navigate URLs subject to local-only restrictions' for the params parameter. 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: 'Sends raw Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP) commands to the browser for advanced use cases not covered by specialized tools.' It specifies the verb ('sends'), resource ('CDP commands'), and scope ('advanced use cases not covered by specialized tools'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like navigate or evaluate_js.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this only when specialized tools inadequate.' It also names alternatives: 'Alternatives: use domain-specific tools (navigate, click_element, evaluate_js).' This clearly defines the tool's role relative to siblings.

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