chrome_web_content_interactions

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

Declares read-only behavior, describes error condition for non-Chrome traces, explains empty result scenarios, and clarifies it operates on the loaded trace. No annotations present, so description fully covers transparency.

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?

Description is brief yet comprehensive, with three clear sections: output definition, usage guidance, and parameter/result explanation. No redundant sentences.

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?

Considering zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers output fields, limits, usage conditions, and empty result meaning. It is fully adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

Input schema has zero parameters; description states 'Parameters: none — operates on the loaded trace,' which adds value beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this meets that.

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 ranks web content interactions by duration, listing output fields and sorting order. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying a unique focus on INP analysis.

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?

Explicitly provides use cases (INP analysis, latency reproduction) and when not to use it (non-Chrome traces, beyond top 100). Also gives an alternative tool (execute_sql) for filtered or larger results.

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