devtools_js_errors

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds value by explaining the capture scope (since browser_open) and detailing all fields in the output. No side effects are mentioned, but the description is adequate given annotations.

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 concise: 8 lines with a clear summary, bulleted field list, and a closing sentence. Every part earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple input (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scope, and output fields comprehensively. It leaves no significant gaps for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'since' parameter. The description adds context by stating 'since browser_open', which helps understand the default scope and the parameter's role. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's description.

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 it returns JavaScript exceptions captured since browser_open. It specifies the resource and verb, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself 'the primary tool for finding which JS file and line causes a bug.'

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 implies usage for debugging JS errors but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like devtools_console. It provides context but lacks exclusion criteria.

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