inspector_track_repaint_widgets

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., performance impact when enabled), persistence of state, or required permissions. The agent is left uninformed about behavioral traits beyond a basic purpose.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The redundant RPC string could be omitted, but overall structure is efficient.

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?

No output schema or annotations; description is minimal. It fails to explain what happens when enabled (e.g., tracking persists until disabled), return values, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent under-informed for a simple toggle 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for well-documented parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool tracks widget repaints for performance issues, with the specific RPC name. It includes a verb ('track') and resource ('widget repaints'), making it distinct from sibling tools like inspector_track_rebuild_dirty_widgets.

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 on when to enable or disable repaint tracking, nor any mention of alternatives or prerequisites. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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