debugPostMessage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Debug' without revealing that it captures messages for a captureTime duration, filters by origin, or what the output/return format is. This is too sparse for an agent to understand the tool's actual behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. While it is under-specified, it is concise and each word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior, return values, or side effects. The schema's parameter descriptions hint at message capture, but an agent still cannot tell what calling this tool returns, how results are presented, or whether it operates on the current page or only on the provided URL.

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 even though the description adds no parameter-specific insight. The schema already documents url, captureTime, and filterOrigin adequately, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 names a specific domain ('postMessage communication issues') and a verb ('debug'), so it is not tautological. However, 'debug' is broad and does not explain what the tool actually does—capturing, filtering, or inspecting messages—nor does it clearly differentiate from siblings like analyzeEventFlow or analyzeConsoleErrors.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives, and no exclusions, prerequisites, or context are mentioned. The only implied usage is the generic one in the description, which leaves an agent to infer when to select it among 13 sibling tools.

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