Enable IPC call logging in a renderer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers idempotency (no-op if proxy exists) and lifecycle (auto-reinstall on frame navigated). Missing a note on potential performance impact or whether it overwrites an existing manual proxy, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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 three focused sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, idempotency, and lifecycle. No wasted words, and the most critical info (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 tool that enables logging with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It explains what it does, its safety (idempotent), and automatic reinstallation. It does not need to detail return values since there is no output schema. Slightly missing is how to stop logging or the format of logged data, but those are likely in sibling tools.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the purpose of 'id' or 'target' or their relationship to the operation.

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 injects a proxy over window.electronAPI to log all method calls into the IPC ring buffer. The verb 'inject' and resource 'window.electronAPI' are specific, and the scope (including user-triggered calls) adds precision. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like get_ipc_log (which reads logs) and clear_logs (which clears them).

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 explains that the tool is idempotent and safe to call multiple times, and that it auto-reinstalls after page navigation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'call before get_ipc_log' or 'use this to start capturing log events'). The guidance is implied but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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