cdp_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool makes a single CDP call and describes two ID parameter formats; it does not mention side effects, error behavior, permissions, or whether the call mutates browser state. This is a significant gap for a generic command executor.

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 two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence adds relevant parameter format details, and there is no verbosity or repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions. The description lacks guidance on which targeting parameter to use (session_id vs tab_id vs target_id), what timeout semantics are, and when to use this tool versus cdp_batch. These gaps make it insufficient for a complex command-invocation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that session_id accepts a 'client:tabId' composite and tab_id accepts a native number or that same composite string. However, it leaves method, params_json, timeout, target_id, and extension_id without any semantic explanation, so coverage is incomplete.

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 action ('Call') on a specific resource ('one Chrome DevTools Protocol command'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling cdp_batch (batch execution). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately recognizable.

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 on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as cdp_batch or debugger_targets. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the tool name alone.

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