run_cdp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious side effect: Target.createTarget/activateTarget silently change which tab subsequent commands act on. That is exactly the kind of behavioral trait annotations would otherwise cover. It still omits return shape, error behavior, and any auth/permission constraints.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the tab-scoping caveat and a pointer to get_manual. No filler, though the parenthetical about tab switching is dense and could be split for readability.

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 raw passthrough tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, its scoping constraint, the auto tab-switch side effect, and where to get deeper detail (get_manual). Return values and failure modes are undefined but are inherently method-dependent, so this is close to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example ('Page.captureScreenshot') and its note that params is an optional argument object largely restate what the schema already documents for method and params, adding little new semantic content.

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 states a specific verb and resource: passing through Chrome DevTools Protocol commands to the current tab, with a concrete example method. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like execute_js, capture, and run_drission_code by being the raw-CDP escape hatch, though it never names an alternative.

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?

It gives useful operating context (commands always act on the current tab, no attachToTarget needed, createTarget/activateTarget auto-switch the operating tab) and defers to get_manual. However, it never says when to prefer this over execute_js, capture, or run_drission_code, which is the main selection decision an agent faces.

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