get_custom_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly bears the full burden. It discloses 'Side effects: none (read-only cache access)', notes the 'EXPERIMENTAL' status, and explains the return format. It could additionally mention behavior on empty results or error conditions, but for a read-only cache tool, the provided transparency is comprehensive.

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 compact, front-loaded with the experimental warning and core purpose, then covers side effects, prerequisites, return format, use cases, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, prerequisites, return structure, and alternatives. For a read-only tool with clear schema documentation, this is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it correctly.

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 schema describes all parameters with constraints, defaults, and interactions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieves unhandled CDP events from domains not covered by specialized listeners', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly contrasts with siblings like get_network_logs and get_console_logs, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to see Target, Debugger, or other domain events' and names alternatives, including specific sibling tools. It also mentions prerequisites (active Chrome connection with send_cdp_command or custom domain listeners), giving clear conditions for when to use the tool.

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