devtools_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing the report contents (js_errors, console_errors, etc.) and its non-destructive nature. It aligns with annotations and provides behavioral context beyond what annotations 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?

The description is extremely concise: a bolded main purpose, a bullet list of report categories, and one-line usage instruction. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured, with zero waste.

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 that the output schema exists (noted in context signals) and the parameter is simple, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It is complete for a diagnostic aggregation tool with good annotations and schema support.

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% coverage for the single parameter 'since' with a clear description and default. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning to the parameter, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it's the 'MAIN DIAGNOSTIC TOOL' and lists the four categories (js_errors, console_errors, failed_resources, slow_resources), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like devtools_js_errors and devtools_network_all by being a comprehensive single-call report.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this after navigating to a page or after triggering a UI action.' It also gives an alternative action ('Equivalent to opening DevTools...'), but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to other specific siblings beyond the equivalence. Still, it offers solid guidance.

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