chrome_web_content_interactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool is read-only, returns a sorted list limited to 100 entries, operates on the loaded trace, and describes what an empty result means. All behavioral aspects are transparently conveyed.

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 concise with three short paragraphs, each serving a distinct purpose: summary of output, usage guidance, and edge case explanation. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: the data returned, sorting, limit, usage guidance, alternative for broader queries, and empty result interpretation. Given the tool's low complexity and zero parameters, the description is fully 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description confirms 'Parameters: none — operates on the loaded trace,' which adds context beyond the schema by explaining that no input is needed and the tool uses the already loaded trace. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 specific fields (id, ts, dur_ms, interaction_type, renderer_upid). It explicitly mentions sorting and limit, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chrome_main_thread_hotspots by focusing on web content interactions. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use when: INP analysis, reproducing user-felt latency, finding slow click/tap/keyboard handlers.' It also gives clear don't-use cases: 'Don't use for: non-Chrome traces' and offers an alternative tool (execute_sql) for broader queries. Additionally, it explains the empty result case. This is comprehensive guidance.

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