capture_console

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and open-world traits, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that the tool captures console messages over a duration, returns all messages during that time, and includes defaults (e.g., 4 seconds). This enhances understanding beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by key parameters and return behavior in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, key parameters, and output behavior, though it lacks details on error handling or specific use cases. With no output schema, it adequately explains returns, but could be slightly enhanced for full completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning the URL, optional JS command, and duration with default, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already covers, such as explaining the waitUntil parameter or JS command usage.

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 specific action ('capture console output'), target resource ('from a web page'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on console messages rather than visual captures like take_screencast or take_screenshot. It uses precise language that defines the tool's unique function.

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 implies usage for capturing console output from web pages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like take_screencast or take_screenshot. It provides some context with parameters but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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