Read Browser Cookies

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds important behavioral context: that cookies are credentials and must be treated as secrets, and that specific acknowledgments are required. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 with three sentences that are front-loaded: use case, preconditions, and post-use guidance. Every sentence adds essential information with no waste.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main use case, sensitivity, and preconditions. However, it misses explaining the 'urls' parameter, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an experienced agent.

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 the description must explain parameters. While it mentions the acknowledgment booleans in the preconditions, it provides no explanation for the 'urls' parameter (array of URIs). This leaves a significant gap in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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's purpose: reading raw cookie values for authentication or diagnosis. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('cookies'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'raw cookie values' and the special preconditions.

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 (full-profile auth or cookie-specific diagnosis), required preconditions (acknowledgments), and post-use guidance (inspect only relevant fields, avoid copying). It effectively guides the agent on appropriate use cases and constraints.

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