get_firefox_output

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that output is 'recent' and from a 'capture file', but does not clarify if the capture file must be started first or if there are side effects (though unlikely). No contradiction with annotations.

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 – the first clearly defines the tool's function, the second offers usage guidance. It is concise and front-loaded, though the second sentence could be more specific.

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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (recent log lines) and the type of content. It could mention that capturing must be active, but overall it is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and sibling context.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented structurally. The description only adds a generic 'use filters' note, adding no meaningful new meaning to the parameters beyond the schema.

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 (stdout/stderr) including specific content types like MOZ_LOG, warnings, crashes, and stack traces. It also specifies it returns recent output from a capture file, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_firefox_info.

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 minimal guidance: 'Use filters to focus on specific content.' It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_firefox_info) or provide context about prerequisites like whether capturing must be active.

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