Attach trusted CDP input

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses multiple operational details: required popup toggle, claimed tab, allowed origin, debugger permission in manifest, Chrome debugging banner, and that repeating attach refreshes TTL without socket teardown. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent a realistic expectation of side effects.

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 four sentences, each adding value: the action, prerequisites, permission/banner, and TTL refresh behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. No filler.

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 tool's complexity (requires multiple prerequisites, has permissions and side effects), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when it's valid, required permissions, and behavior on repeat. It doesn't cover error cases or return values, but there's no output schema, and the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 100%, so both parameters (ttlMs and sessionTabId) are already well-documented with meanings and defaults. The description adds the TTL refresh behavior on repeat attach, which is useful but is more of a behavioral note than parameter semantics. It doesn't add new meaning to the parameters themselves, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('attach') and resource ('trusted CDP input') to a claimed tab, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like cdp_detach (detach) and claim_tab (claim). It also states the effect: while attached, certain steps use trusted CDP input. This is unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 gives explicit prerequisites (popup enableCdp toggle, claimed tab, allowed origin) and notes the debugger permission and Chrome banner. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer this is the tool to attach CDP input, versus cdp_detach for detaching. It's more than implied but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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