get_cookies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from an on-disk profile and works for closed tabs, which are key behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions or return format, but for a simple read operation, this is 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?

A single sentence of about 10 words, front-loading the action and source. No redundancy; every word adds value. Perfectly concise.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key behavior (on-disk, closed tabs, optional filter). It lacks explanation of the 'profile' parameter, but for a simple 2-parameter tool, it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'host' as an optional filter, adding meaning. However, 'profile' parameter is not described; it likely specifies which browser profile, but the description gives no guidance. Baseline 3 due to coverage, partial compensation.

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 it reads cookies from the on-disk profile, including for closed tabs, which differentiates it from get_live_cookies (session cookies) and ff_get_cookies (Firefox-specific). The verb 'read' and resource 'cookies' are specific.

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 implies using this tool for persistent cookies or when cookies from closed tabs or the on-disk store are needed, contrasting with live session cookies. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context of sibling tool names provides guidance.

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