Dock console

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful stateful context (capture starts on first call, load-time errors require a reload). However, it never explains the destructive side flagged by annotations — that the `clear` flag wipes buffered entries — leaving the agent to discover that from the schema alone.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded before the usage tip. The parenthetical is slightly dense but earns its place by preventing a common mistake (missing load-time errors).

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 output schema, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden, but it never says what a result looks like (list of entries, error objects, counts). It does cover capture timing, but the destructive `clear` behavior and return format are left implicit for a 5-parameter tool.

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 clear, limit, pattern, only_errors, and tab_id are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so the 3 baseline applies.

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 resource (console messages + uncaught errors of a tab), which clearly separates it from siblings like dock_network, dock_snapshot, or dock_text. The verb is implicit (retrieve/read) rather than stated, and no sibling is named for comparison, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete invocation context: the first call begins capturing, and it routes the agent to dock_act navigate reload to surface load-time errors. This is actionable guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative tool, so not a full 5.

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