chrome-devtools-mcp-mux

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description doesn't contradict this. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation—it doesn't disclose error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), response format, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a helpful usage note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on output (no output schema provided) and error handling, which could be useful for an agent. However, with annotations covering safety and schema covering inputs, it meets basic completeness for a simple retrieval 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'msgid' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or examples). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('a console message by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_console_messages' by specifying retrieval of a single message via ID rather than listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential retrieval tools beyond the named sibling.

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 clear context by referencing the sibling tool 'list_console_messages' as the source for obtaining message IDs, implying that this tool should be used after listing messages to retrieve details of a specific one. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the listed sibling, but the guidance is sufficient for basic usage.

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