chrome-devtools-mcp-mux

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: it specifies waiting for text 'on the selected page' and resolves when 'any value appears,' which clarifies scope and success conditions. However, it doesn't disclose details like polling behavior, error handling, or what happens if timeout expires. With annotations covering safety, this adds moderate value.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 a simple tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks output details (no schema provided), doesn't explain failure modes, and offers no usage context. It meets minimum viability but isn't fully complete for an agent to use optimally.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal semantics: it implies the 'text' parameter is for waiting and mentions 'selected page' context, but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema provides (e.g., text matching logic). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 tool's purpose: 'Wait for the specified text to appear on the selected page.' It uses a specific verb ('wait for') and resource ('text'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_console_message' or 'list_console_messages' which might also involve waiting for text. The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a selected page first), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_console_message' for waiting on console output. Usage is implied only by the action described, with no explicit context.

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