cdp_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the buffered nature (truncation semantics), pagination cursors, return shape, and the full CDP access prerequisite. The description does well on eviction behavior and child target discovery, but doesn't mention rate limits, memory/fetch cost, or side effects of consuming events. It's solid but not exhaustive.

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 dense but compact paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and access path. It packs pagination protocol, truncation semantics, child target discovery, and a prerequisite into ~4 sentences with no wasted words. Could be split for readability but is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

This is a complex streaming/cursor-based tool with 7 params and no output schema, so the description must cover return semantics and usage protocol, which it does (cursor, hasMore, truncated). It explains pagination and child target discovery thoroughly. It falls slightly short on edge cases like how methods filtering interacts with pagination or what happens with timeout_ms when no match, but is largely complete for agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3, and the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds context for after_sequence (cursor pagination semantics) and mentions methods/target_id/session_id indirectly through 'Discover child target selectors'. But it doesn't significantly extend parameter meaning beyond the schema beyond the cursor usage.

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 reads CDP events from a tab via the cdp tab capability, with a precise resource (buffered CDP events) and access path (cdp tab capability, active tab or tab_id). It also names return schema fields, distinguishing it from siblings like cdp_send (which sends) and get_console_logs (which fetches console-specific logs). This is a specific verb+resource.

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 gives clear operational context: how to page (use after_sequence while hasMore is true), what truncated means, and how to discover child target selectors. It mentions a prerequisite (full CDP access enabled). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives for related tasks, though the child-target discovery note and cursor pagination guidance are genuinely useful.

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