session_dumpReturns all buffered browser session data in memory—console, network, DOM, storage, performance, and screenshots—without writing to disk, so you can process it yourself.
把当前缓冲里的全部数据按 CapturedData 结构返回（不做落盘），适合你想自己加工时用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeDom | No | ||
| includeStorage | No | ||
| includeScreenshot | No | ||
| includePerformance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that nothing is written to disk and that the return shape is CapturedData, but is silent on whether the buffer is cleared after the dump, size/rate limits, or permissions.
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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the key constraint and the use-case. Zero wasted words.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the four include flags unexplained and the buffer-lifecycle semantics unaddressed. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently.
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 0% and all four boolean flags (includeDom, includeStorage, includeScreenshot, includePerformance) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase '全部数据' (all data) arguably conflicts with the selective-include flags, adding confusion rather than clarity.
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 states a specific verb+resource: returns the current buffer's data as a CapturedData structure, and clarifies it does NOT persist to disk. This distinguishes it from capture_save-style siblings, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
It gives a clear conditional use case ('适合你想自己加工时用') and implies a contrast with disk-saving tools ('不做落盘'). No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.