cdp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description says nothing about side effects, error behavior (e.g., what happens with invalid methods), whether responses are returned or discarded, or whether network/CDP sessions need to be pre-enabled. 'Raw CDP command' implies direct access with minimal validation, but this is more implied than disclosed. For a raw passthrough tool, the behavior (pass-through of method+params) is somewhat self-evident, but error handling and response semantics are unaddressed.

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?

Single sentence with an inline example achieves maximum information density with zero waste. The example grounds the abstract concept immediately. This is exemplary conciseness—short, self-contained, and instructive.

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?

Two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema. The description plus schema adequately cover the tool's purpose and params. One gap: for a raw CDP passthrough, the return value behavior (does it return the CDP response?) is unspecified, which matters for such a tool. But given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, it's nearly complete. A note on response/return behavior would push this to 5.

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%, so the schema documents both parameters (method, params). The description adds meaning via the concrete example showing how they map to a real CDP call (method='Page.navigate', params={'url': '...'}). This example exceeds baseline by illustrating the method-params relationship, but it doesn't explain the 'params' object structure beyond the example. Baseline 3 is appropriate with good schema coverage, slightly elevated by the illustrative example.

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 this is a 'Raw CDP command' with a verb (execute/send) and resource (Chrome DevTools Protocol methods). It even provides a concrete example (method='Page.navigate', params={'url': 'https://example.com'}). This distinguishes it from siblings like js (general JS execution) and navigate (high-level navigation). It's slightly less than 5 because it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'Raw' qualifier and example make the purpose clear.

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 usage context—'Raw CDP command' suggests it's for low-level protocol needs rather than high-level operations—but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'navigate', 'js', or 'network_enable'. The word 'Raw' hints at advanced/low-level use, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites like network enablement or tab selection.

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