run_cdp

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It only mentions running commands and returning results, omitting that CDP commands like Page.navigate can change browser state, and it does not discuss prerequisites or error behavior. The mismatch between the schema (cmd_args as string) and the described **cmd_args also creates confusion.

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 appropriately sized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note) and front-loaded with a one-line summary. The examples are useful and do not pad the text.

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 low-level CDP runner with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on when to use it vs sibling CDP tools, fails to clarify the cmd_args format inconsistency, and doesn't address potential side effects or error conditions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define parameters. It provides 'cmd: CDP命令协议' and '**cmd_args: CDP命令参数' with examples, which adds some meaning. However, the schema declares cmd_args as a string, while the description suggests keyword arguments, leading to ambiguity about the expected format.

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 runs Google CDP protocol commands in the current tab and retrieves results, distinguishing it from JS-execution tools like run_js. The scope ('current tab') and examples solidify the purpose.

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 examples of how to call the tool but does not explain when to choose CDP over alternatives such as run_js or listen_cdp_event. No explicit when-to-use or exclusions, only implied usage from examples.

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