browser_get_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: events are read from memory and Chrome is not contacted, so there are no live side effects. It omits pagination behavior, what happens when no capture is active, and whether results are ordered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource list is placed before the qualifying clause. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but there is no wasted text.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers only purpose and the no-Chrome-call trait. An agent still cannot tell how to page through results, what a returned event looks like, or what preconditions (an active capture) are required.

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% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — limit, offset, and the required session_id are never explained or referenced. The parameter names are conventional, which softens the gap, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb (query) and enumerates the resource precisely: captured console, navigation, network, and WebSocket events. It partially differentiates from siblings by implying a buffered event stream rather than the live browser, though it overlaps conceptually with browser_list_network_requests without naming it.

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 clause 'does not call Chrome' implicitly tells the agent when this tool is preferable — when reading already-captured data rather than probing the live browser. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when/when-not conditions (e.g., capture must be running) are given, so usage is only implied.

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