get_cookies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds value by revealing that the tool includes HttpOnly cookies, which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or that it is read-only, though that is strongly implied.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides a key distinguishing detail. Ideal length and structure.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at the return format (e.g., array of cookie objects). It covers what the tool does and the important HttpOnly aspect, but omits output structure. Still fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 100% with descriptions already explaining pageId, sessionId, and urlFilter. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning, only contextual background about the operation. Thus, the parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced beyond the schema.

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 retrieves cookies from the browser network stack visible to a page, and distinguishes itself by noting it includes HttpOnly cookies not accessible via document.cookie. This specificity leaves no doubt about the tool's 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 implies use for cookie retrieval, especially when HttpOnly cookies are needed, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_network_log or get_local_storage. The context is clear, but no when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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