stop_console_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'stop' implies a state change, it doesn't specify what happens after stopping (e.g., whether previously captured logs remain accessible via 'get_console_logs'), whether this requires specific permissions, or what the typical response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'stop capturing' entails operationally, what state changes occur, or how this interacts with related tools like 'get_console_logs' and 'start_console_capture'.

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 description doesn't mention any parameters, but with 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'pageId' is fully documented in the schema) and only one optional parameter, this is acceptable. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description doesn't contradict or add confusion, warranting a slightly higher score.

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 action ('Stop capturing') and the target ('console messages'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'stop_network_capture' or 'stop_recording', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to have started console capture first), nor does it reference the sibling 'start_console_capture' tool that logically precedes it.

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