get_firefox_output

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether reading is destructive, if output is buffered or cleared, or any permissions required. It only states it returns recent output.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient without redundancy, though the second sentence is somewhat generic.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the format of the returned output (e.g., array of strings). It mentions 'capture file' but omits details about default behavior or edge cases, making it minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context like 'recent output' and 'filters,' which aligns with the 'lines', 'grep', and 'since' parameters. However, it adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 retrieves Firefox output including stdout/stderr, MOZ_LOG, warnings, crashes, and stack traces. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_console_messages or get_firefox_info, though explicit differentiation is absent.

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 only generically advises 'Use filters to focus on specific content.' It does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., list_console_messages) or note any prerequisites or limitations.

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