Collect page JavaScript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core actions: enabling the debugger on a session, collecting metadata, and optionally fetching sources into the local MCP process. However, it omits important behavioral details such as potential side effects on the session state (e.g., whether it pauses or alters execution), reversibility, or any required session prerequisites beyond being 'Raw.'

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('Enable Debugger'). It avoids unnecessary fluff. However, it compresses multiple steps into one sentence, which slightly hurts readability but remains efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, session prerequisites, side effects, or how it fits with sibling debugging tools. It introduces the term 'Raw session' without definition, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool optimally.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It vaguely references 'optionally fetch bounded script sources,' which hints at includeSource and maxSourceBytes, but it does not clarify the meaning or purpose of waitMs, maxScripts, urlIncludes, or targetSessionId. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 function: enabling the debugger, collecting script metadata, and optionally fetching script sources. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (page JavaScript on a Raw session). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like debugger_lifecycle or sourcemap_fetch_and_parse.

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 over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., debugger_session, sourcemap_fetch_and_parse). The only implied context is 'existing Raw session,' but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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