chrome-debug-mcp

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 states the action but doesn't explain what 'step over' entails (e.g., executes the current line without entering function calls, moves to next line), whether it requires specific debugger state, or what happens after execution (e.g., pauses at next line). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 front-loads the core action ('step over') and immediately specifies the context ('current line of code in the debugger'), making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, prerequisites, effects, or return values, which are essential for an AI agent to use this tool correctly in a debugging context. The minimal description doesn't compensate for the missing structured information.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, focusing solely on the action. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist to document.

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 specific action ('step over') and target resource ('current line of code in the debugger'), using precise terminology that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'resume', 'set_breakpoint', or 'remove_breakpoint'. It directly communicates the debugger control operation without ambiguity.

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 like 'step_into', 'step_out', or 'resume', which are common debugger operations. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a paused debugger session) or exclusions, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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