chrome_web_content_interactions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description details output format (metadata-first JSON, row_count, truncated, string_truncated) and explains empty results (no interactions captured). No contradictions with annotations.

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 moderately long but well-structured with sections for output columns, usage, parameters, and output behavior. It front-loads key information but could be slightly more succinct.

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 output schema, the description explains output format and status flags adequately. It covers trace_id implicitly by stating 'operates on the loaded trace,' and explains empty results. Slightly more detail on trace_id parameter could be added.

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?

Description adds minimal value for limit (default/cap) and max_string_len, but schema already covers all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description notes the limit default and cap, confirming schema info.

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 ranks Chrome web content interactions by duration, listing specific columns (id, ts, total_duration_ms, etc.) and explicitly marks itself as read-only. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that filtered interactions can be obtained via execute_sql on the same table.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (INP analysis, reproducing user-felt latency, finding slow handlers) and exclusions (non-Chrome traces will error). Also offers an alternative approach for filtering by interaction_type, which helps an agent choose correctly.

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