chrome-debug-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what types of logs are retrieved and the troubleshooting purpose, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific browser state, if logs are cumulative across page navigation, or what format the logs are returned in. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 sentences with zero waste - the first defines the tool's purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance. Every word serves a clear purpose, and the most important information (what the tool retrieves) 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 read-only diagnostic tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the purpose and basic usage, but lacks details about the return format, log persistence behavior, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of browser debugging and the absence of both annotations and output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('console logs from the browser'), with specific examples of what's included (console.log/warn/error calls, exceptions, network errors). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_network_logs and get_custom_events by focusing specifically on browser console output.

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 ('for troubleshooting page scripts and errors'), giving the agent practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., get_network_logs for network-specific issues).

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