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 the tool is 'EXPERIMENTAL,' which adds useful context about stability, and notes the prerequisite of CDP knowledge. However, it doesn't describe potential side effects, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a low-level command 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 concise and front-loaded: three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third adds prerequisites. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 (low-level CDP command) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, and prerequisites. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, which could be important for such a tool.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples beyond those in schema descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Send a raw CDP command to the browser.' It specifies the verb ('send') and resource ('raw CDP command'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting it should be used only when specialized tools (like navigate, click_element, etc.) don't suffice.

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 vs. alternatives: 'Use ONLY if existing specialized tools (like navigate, click_element, etc.) do not satisfy your needs.' It also mentions prerequisites: 'Requires knowledge of the Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP).' This clearly defines the context and exclusions.

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