ff_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 discloses that the tool operates on a real running Firefox and includes httpOnly cookies, which is helpful. However, it omits behavioral details such as whether it modifies state, requires specific permissions, or what happens if no cookies are found (e.g., empty list vs. error).

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 very concise at two sentences, with the main action in the first sentence. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from requirements). Overall, no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description lacks details on return format (e.g., array of cookie objects), error handling, and how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_cookies'. It provides minimal context, which is barely adequate for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to explain the parameters. It mentions 'for a URL/domain' but does not clarify the roles of the 'url' and 'domain' parameters, whether they are exclusive or combined, or what format they should take. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 gets real cookies (including httpOnly) for a URL/domain, distinguishing it from abstract cookie retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cookies' or 'get_live_cookies' by highlighting the Firefox-specific nature and real browser requirement.

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 mentions the prerequisite (bridge add-on loaded) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative cookie tools (e.g., get_cookies, clear_cookies). It implies usage for real, httpOnly cookies but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

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