chrome-devtools-mcp-mux

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: false' already indicates this is a mutation operation. The description adds useful context about what gets captured (heap snapshot) and the debugging purpose, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like whether this pauses page execution, requires specific page states, or has performance implications. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the action and target, second sentence provides the purpose. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about purpose and usage. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, file path validation, or error conditions), leaving a minor gap in 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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'filePath'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., file format requirements, path conventions, or what happens if file exists). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a heap snapshot'), target resource ('currently selected page'), and purpose ('analyze memory distribution of JavaScript objects and debug memory leaks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'take_screenshot' or 'take_snapshot' by specifying it's for memory analysis rather than visual or general snapshots.

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 for when to use this tool ('to analyze memory distribution' and 'debug memory leaks'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for memory debugging scenarios without detailing exclusions.

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