zen_watch_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the buffer limit of 500 entries and the types of captured messages, which is fairly transparent. It does not mention side effects or what happens on re-toggle, but the core behavior is clear.

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 sentences, front-loads the purpose, and provides essential behavioral details without extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (toggle, buffer, retrieval). Minor omissions like buffer clearing on re-toggle are not critical.

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%, so the description should compensate. While 'enabled' and 'tab_id' are implied by 'Toggle console capture on a tab', the description does not explicitly explain parameter semantics (e.g., whether null tab_id refers to current tab). The parameters are simple, so minimal addition is acceptable.

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 toggles console capture on a tab, specifies the types of messages captured, and mentions the buffer limit. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'zen_console_logs' by indicating that the retrieval tool is separate.

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 context for when to use the tool (enable capture) and directs to 'zen_console_logs' for retrieval, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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