get_cookies

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state whether this affects browser state, whether it requires network enablement or navigation first, what format cookies are returned in, or whether it's a read-only operation. For an unannotated tool, this is a critical gap.

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 extremely short (one line), which is efficient, but it's under-specified rather than concise. It's merely a code example with no prose explanation. The example demonstrates usage but does not earn its place as a substitute for an actual functional description.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented parameter, the description must carry significant explanatory weight. It fails to explain return format, cookie scope, or behavioral side effects. Among 45 sibling tools, this description provides almost no differentiation or operational guidance.

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?

There's a single 'url' parameter with 0% schema description coverage and no documentation in the tool description. The description shows an example URL usage, implying the parameter is the target site, but doesn't clarify edge cases like requiring exact origin matching, whether protocol matters, or whether subdomain-level matching applies. Minimal value added 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 is just a usage example ('get_cookies("https://example.com")'), not an actual explanation of what the tool does. It implies retrieving cookies, but there's no verb+resource statement of purpose. The name suggests 'get cookies' but the description provides no semantic expansion beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_cookie. There's no context about browser session, authentication scenarios, or when cookie retrieval would be appropriate. The description contains zero guidance on tool selection.

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