Read GUI pop-ups

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains exactly why: reading empties the GUI's buffer (keeping five) and the Internal Debugger dialog is read-then-closed, so the call has a destructive-ish consumption side effect. This adds real behavioral context beyond the boolean flags, though it never states permission or error requirements.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the side-effect caveat, then the sibling relationship. Dense but every clause earns its place; the buffer-depth parenthetical is genuinely useful. Slightly information-heavy in one paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still previews the payload shape (type/text/answer index/timeout) and discloses the buffer-clearing side effect. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on parameter syntax.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (reading GUI pop-up messages) and spoils the content structure in detail: type, text, answer index, current timeout, plus the Internal Debugger dialog. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like cm_popup_timeout or cm_log without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context by noting that cm_load_testrun, cm_start_sim and cm_wait_end already return new popups as 'popups', which tells the agent when this call may be redundant. It stops short of explicitly routing the timeout-setting use case to the cm_popup_timeout sibling, so no crisp when-not guidance.

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