Capture bounded web issue evidence

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: evidence is redacted, the bundle aggregates many sources, screenshots are optional, and auth-seeded sessions suppress screenshots. This helps the agent understand side effects and constraints that annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense, efficient sentences with no filler. The list of captured evidence is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the most important caveat 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?

The description covers the bundle contents and a key behavioral constraint, and there is an output schema to describe the return value. However, for a complex multi-source capture tool, it lacks usage context, session provenance guidance, and any mention of when this tool is the right choice among siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the required 'sessionId' at all. It only implies screenshot behavior through 'optional screenshot' and 'auth-seeded sessions suppress screenshots,' leaving the core parameter semantically underdetermined.

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 names a specific verb ('Combine') and resource ('one redacted evidence bundle') and enumerates the exact evidence categories included. It clearly distinguishes this tool as a comprehensive evidence-capture action from siblings like web_debug_evaluate or web_browser_action by scope and output.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as web_repro_record or web_next_inspect. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an active session, nor any excluded scenarios.

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