browser_ws_monitor

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

The description discloses a significant behavioral trait: it uses prototype patching to log WS frames, which implies modification of browser internals. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or potential detection by websites. With no annotations providing safety hints, this is somewhat insufficient but better than no behavioral disclosure.

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, immediately front-loading the core purpose ('Install WebSocket monitoring') and then adding the method and target. No word is wasted, achieving high clarity in minimal space.

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?

While the tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description lacks usage context: no mention of when to use it, how logs are delivered, or whether installation persists. The prototype patching detail gives some context, but the absence of alternative guidance and operational details makes it a 3 rather than higher.

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 input schema contains a single 'slot' parameter with a description 'CDP slot number 0-19', which fully covers its meaning (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool installs WebSocket monitoring and logs all WS frames via prototype patching. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_network_requests and browser_web3_monitor by focusing specifically on WebSocket frame logging. However, it could be more explicit about the primary action (monitoring vs setting up).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_network_requests or browser_web3_monitor. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites. This forces the agent to infer use cases from the name and description alone.

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