get_page_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it reveals the capture mechanism ('hook installed at browser_launch'), the lifecycle behavior (buffer resets on every navigation), and the capacity limit (max 100 entries per page load). These are non-obvious behaviors an agent cannot infer from the name or schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, how and when it is captured with the reset caveat, and the entry cap. The main purpose is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, this is complete. It states the payload, the capture mechanism, the reset pitfall, and the size limit—everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results. No critical information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing what the returned payload contains (uncaught errors, unhandled promise rejections, up to 100 entries), which helps an agent interpret results even in the absence of an output schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get uncaught JavaScript errors + unhandled promise rejections from the current page.' The content is precisely scoped ('current page') and the payload specificity (uncaught errors vs. console logs) distinguishes it from the closest sibling, console_get, even without naming it.

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?

Clear temporal guidance is given: 'buffer resets on every navigation (read it before navigating away),' which tells the agent exactly when to call the tool relative to navigation events. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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