inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool captures a screenshot and console logs in a single call, and mentions the delay parameter to allow dynamic content to render. It does not disclose potential side effects or whether the tool is read-only, but overall it adequately describes its behavior.

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 consists of two sentences in the first paragraph stating the primary purpose, followed by a second paragraph providing context. It is front-loaded, uses minimal words, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the why (diagnosing hidden JS errors) and what (screenshot + console logs). It could benefit from mentioning the return format or disk saving behavior, but the schema covers the latter, and the tool's context signal indicates no output schema, so the description adequately compensates.

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 100% description coverage for its 9 parameters. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable. Following the guidelines, this earns a baseline score of 3.

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 uses the verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'running web app'. It specifies the dual purpose of capturing screenshots and browser console logs, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely focus on listing or retrieving items without interactive inspection.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to diagnose rendering issues, JavaScript errors, and runtime warnings that are invisible to users and LLMs. It implicitly guides usage by highlighting hidden errors in web apps and custom components. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives among siblings.

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