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 indicates this is a destructive operation (stopping Chrome) and provides context about why one would use it (preventing zombie instances). However, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to active sessions, or whether the stop is graceful vs forceful. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves important operational details 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. There's zero waste, no repetition, and the information is front-loaded with the most important detail first.

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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose and usage context. It explains what the tool does and when to use it relative to sibling tools. However, it doesn't describe what happens after stopping Chrome or whether there are any side effects, which would be helpful for a destructive operation. Given the simplicity of the tool (0 parameters), the description is mostly complete.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. The description focuses on the tool's purpose and usage rather than parameter details, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Stops') and resource ('the managed Chrome instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'restart_chrome' which implies a different lifecycle operation. It provides a concrete verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to ensure no zombie Chrome instances are left running after finishing operations with the MCP server.' This provides clear contextual guidance about the appropriate timing and purpose, distinguishing it from other lifecycle tools like 'restart_chrome' which serves a different operational need.

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