chrome-debug-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention whether this requires debugger to be active, what happens if breakpoint already exists, whether it's persistent across sessions, or what feedback is provided. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the breakpoint, error conditions, or how to verify success. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 5 undocumented parameters. It mentions 'script, line and column' which maps to 3 parameters (script_id, line_number, column_number), but doesn't explain the remaining 2 parameters (url, script_hash) or provide any format/syntax details. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Set a debugger breakpoint') and target location ('at a specific script, line and column'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_breakpoint' or 'pause_on_load' beyond the basic action, which prevents 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_breakpoint' or 'pause_on_load', nor any context about prerequisites or typical debugging workflows. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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