get_cookies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is read-only and non-destructive by stating 'Read all cookies'. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as required permissions, error handling, or what happens if the session is invalid. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 consists of two short, relevant sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by stating the action and its primary use case.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and usage. It could optionally mention that all cookies are returned or that the filter is optional, but the schema already handles parameter details. The description is complete for a straightforward read operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully describing session_id as 'Session ID' and domain_filter as 'Filter by domain (optional)'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource ('cookies from a session'). It also provides context by calling it essential for debugging auth issues. Among sibling tools, set_cookies exists, making this the read counterpart, so it is well-distinguished.

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 states the tool is 'Essential for debugging auth issues', which clearly implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though no alternative read-cookies tool exists among siblings.

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