console_capture_start

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it does not foreground the tab, is bounded, and is session-specific. It also discloses the concurrency behavior (capture_busy). Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict this; it supplements with operational details. However, it doesn't explicitly explain what side effects or resource consumption occur, but the added traits are valuable.

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, followed by usage instructions and a concurrency note. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the purpose, lifecycle, and concurrency, but it omits parameter semantics entirely. While an output schema exists (not shown), the parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, which is a significant gap for a tool with 3 optional parameters. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like having a tab open, though that's implied by 'real-browser tab'. Overall, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 has 3 parameters with no descriptions (schema coverage 0%), and the description fails to explain what timeout, session_id, or max_entries mean. The term 'bounded' hints at limits but doesn't tie it to the parameters. With zero schema descriptions, the description must compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings.

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 action ('Start'), the resource ('Runtime console and exception capture'), and the scope ('on a real-browser tab without foregrounding it'). It also introduces the 'bounded' qualifier, which distinguishes it from unbounded captures. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like network_capture_start.

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 gives explicit lifecycle guidance: use get_console_messages while running and console_capture_stop when done, all within the same MCP session. It also warns about the capture_busy condition when another session is capturing and advises using a separate tab per agent. This clearly delineates when to use this tool and how to handle conflicts.

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