console_capture_stop

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

The description discloses the session ownership constraint and the error condition (capture_busy), adding value beyond annotations. It also mentions returning the buffer and releasing the lease, which are behavioral details. However, it doesn't state whether the buffer is cleared after retrieval or other side effects, but annotations already mark it destructive, so the description is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the ownership condition is stated immediately after. Every sentence adds necessary context.

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 main action and an important precondition, and an output schema exists to describe the return value. However, it omits any explanation of the two parameters, and it doesn't explicitly state that capture must already be active (though implied by 'stop'). The missing parameter semantics is a notable gap for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the timeout or session_id parameters. The mention of session ownership hints that session_id might identify the starting session, but it's not explicit. With zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and usage of both parameters.

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: 'Stop console capture on a real-browser tab, return the remaining bounded message buffer, and release its debugger lease.' It names the specific resource (console capture) and the operation, distinguishing it from console_capture_start and get_console_messages by virtue of being the stop counterpart.

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 a clear ownership precondition: 'Only the MCP session that started the capture may stop it; another session gets capture_busy.' This explicitly tells the agent when the tool can be used and what happens otherwise. It doesn't explicitly say 'use when you want to end capture,' but that is implied by the action verb.

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