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. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying the temporal scope ('since the last navigation') and hinting at behavior related to page selection and message preservation, which is not covered by annotations. It does not contradict the annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential contextual details, making it highly concise and effective.

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 (4 parameters, read-only operation), the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the scope and context of use, though it lacks details on output format or pagination behavior, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. The annotations and schema coverage partially compensate for this gap.

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, providing clear documentation for all four parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already covers, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 action ('List all console messages') and specifies the scope ('for the currently selected page since the last navigation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_console_message' (singular) and 'list_network_requests'. It uses specific verbs and defines the resource precisely.

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 by specifying the context ('currently selected page since the last navigation'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_console_message' or other debugging tools. It provides some contextual guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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