debug_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and operational behavior. It fails to mention that the log accumulates and is not cleared unless the 'clear' parameter is set, nor does it hint at the output format or whether dumping is a one-shot or continuous operation.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler content.

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 tool is simple with a single optional parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain complex return values. However, it omits any mention of the log's lifecycle or the effect of the 'clear' parameter, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.

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 schema has full description coverage for the single 'clear' parameter, which reads 'Clear the debug log after reading'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool's action ('Dump') and resource ('raw WebKit Inspector Protocol messages exchanged'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_console_log and get_network_log, which deal with higher-level logs. The debugging context is also apparent.

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 phrase 'for debugging' implies use when troubleshooting protocol-level issues, but the description does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives (e.g., get_console_log) or state when not to use it. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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