Dump Muse DOM

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether this mutates state, requires login/auth, is read-only, is expensive, or whether the dump is stable. The trigger condition is useful but leaves most behavioral context unaddressed for a diagnostics tool with zero annotation support.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with no filler, and the trigger condition is front-loaded after the noun phrase. Nothing is wasted, but structure could more explicitly separate output from condition.

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?

For a diagnostics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it doesn't describe the return shape beyond 'element counts and transcript HTML,' doesn't state auth or environment requirements, and doesn't cover the failure mode it's meant to diagnose in any detail. The schema covers its one parameter, but the description leaves the tool's behavior underspecified.

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 documents max_chars fully with a default and a 200000 cap, so coverage is 100% and the description needn't repeat it. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a deliverable ('element counts and transcript HTML') and a trigger ('use if selectors stop matching'), so the diagnostic intent is visible. But the verb is a bare label ('Dump Muse DOM') and the tool isn't clearly distinguished from its siblings (muse_status, muse_read_chat) in a way an agent can route on. Purpose is implied rather than stated as a specific verb+resource.

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?

It gives an explicit use condition: 'Use if selectors stop matching after a Muse update.' That is a clear when-to-use trigger. It doesn't name an alternative sibling to try before or instead, so it stops short of the top band.

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