get_firefox_output

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context by specifying what types of output are included (stdout/stderr, MOZ_LOG, warnings, crashes, stack traces) and that it returns recent output from a capture file. This enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second explains the source, and the third advises on filtering. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 simple read-only log retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool returns and mentions filtering. It could explicitly state the return format, but that is not critical given the simplicity and existing schema documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (grep, lines, since). The description adds only generic references to 'filters' and 'recent output', which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional detailed parameter semantics beyond what is already present.

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's function: 'Retrieve Firefox output (stdout/stderr including MOZ_LOG, warnings, crashes, stack traces)'. It specifies the resource (Firefox output from a capture file) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_firefox_info, which likely retrieves metadata rather than logs.

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 implies usage when needing Firefox output logs and provides basic guidance on using filters ('Use filters to focus on specific content'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool. No strong when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance is given beyond the implied purpose.

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