get_custom_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively. It discloses that the tool is 'EXPERIMENTAL', has 'Side effects: none (read-only cache access)', and describes the return format ('JSON array of custom events with method, parameters, and timestamp'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but covers key behavioral aspects well.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste: it starts with an experimental warning, states the purpose, covers side effects and prerequisites, describes returns, and ends with usage guidelines and alternatives. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with critical information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context for a read-only tool with 2 parameters. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and returns adequately. However, it doesn't detail error conditions or the exact structure of the returned JSON array, leaving minor gaps 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (filter_method and limit). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Retrieves unhandled CDP events') and resource ('from domains not covered by specialized listeners'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_console_logs and get_network_logs. It explicitly mentions what it returns and contrasts with domain-specific alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to see Target, Debugger, or other domain events') and when not to use it ('Alternatives: domain-specific listeners (get_network_logs, get_console_logs)'). It also includes prerequisites ('requires active Chrome connection with send_cdp_command or custom domain listeners active'), making usage context very clear.

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