wavexis_cookie_list

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

The description explicitly states that there are no side effects and that it reads cookie state from the browser session, which aligns with and meaningfully supports the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It also previews the JSON return keys, though, since an output schema is present, the return-shape detail provides only modest added value.

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 compact and well front-loaded: action first, then the alternative tool, then side effects and return shape. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetitive content.

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 cookie-listing tool, the definition is solid: it specifies filters, gives a safe alternative, states the lack of side effects, and covers the output shape. Remaining details such as limit defaults and session_id sourcing are present in the schema, so the description is not critically incomplete, though it does not define filter matching semantics.

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?

The prose names three optional filters (name, domain, path) but does not describe the limit parameter or clarify how multiple filters are combined. With the stated schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries a heavier burden, but it only partially compensates; the nested schema provides the missing details.

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 opens with a precise action-resource statement ('List browser cookies') and names the optional filters: name, domain, and path. It also explicitly differentiates this tool from wavexis_cookie_get, which is the closest sibling, by saying the latter is for a single named cookie.

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 makes the intended usage clear: use this tool to list browser cookies, optionally filtered. It also gives an explicit when-not condition, directing the agent to wavexis_cookie_get when a single named cookie is needed, which removes ambiguity among the cookie-related siblings.

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