Start tailing the client console

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: logs are buffered in memory, capture survives renderer page reloads with continuity, and an active CDP connection is required. It also clarifies that stopping releases memory, which aligns with the non-destructive annotation. The annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so this is strong supplemental context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers usage, alternatives, behavior, and prerequisite in clearly separated sentences. Every sentence adds useful decision-making information without repetition. The length is appropriate for a tool with several sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what is captured, where it goes, how to retrieve it, and how to stop it. It also covers the prerequisite and reload-survival behavior, which are important for correct invocation. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 takes no input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. This matches the baseline score of 4 for a zero-parameter tool, with no schema gap to compensate for.

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: attach to the League Client renderer via CDP and start streaming console logs, warnings, and uncaught exceptions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming retrieval, stopping, and disk-log alternatives. An agent can identify this as the console-capture start tool without ambiguity.

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?

It says exactly when to use the tool: before executing UI actions or testing plugins to capture frontend diagnostics. It also routes to alternatives for retrieving data (lol_cdp_console_tail), stopping capture (lol_cdp_console_stop), and reading disk logs (lol_logs_tail). This provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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