ecommerce_extract_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists extracted artifacts and the source tab. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether the tab must first be attached, or any side effects or authentication expectations.

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 a single compact Thai sentence that front-loads the action and the target artifacts without wasting words. It is concise, clear, and contains no redundant restatements of the schema.

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 security-sensitive session-extraction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return format, prerequisites, and behavioral context. It is minimally viable but not complete enough to reliably guide invocation among many sibling ecommerce tools.

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%, and the description never mentions the required 'platform' parameter or explains the enum values. The enum is self-descriptive, but the description adds no meaning to help the agent choose between shopee, tiktok, lazada, and lnwshop.

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 names a specific action ('extract') and concrete resources (cookies, CSRF tokens, Authorization headers) from an open store tab. This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only implied context is that a store tab must already be open, and the agent is left to infer how this relates to alternatives like ecommerce_token_telemetry or browser_attach_existing.

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