get_toast_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool checks common patterns and returns messages, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or clarify if any page interaction occurs (e.g., scrolling). The description is adequate but could be more explicit about non-destructiveness.

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 two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and approach, the second explains a parameter and use case. It is front-loaded and 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?

For a simple read tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, approach, parameter guidance, and a use case. It says 'Returns the messages found', which is minimal but sufficient. Could mention failure cases or empty results, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining when to use wait_ms (animate in) and that selector overrides defaults. This provides practical value for parameter 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 captures toast/notification/alert text, lists common patterns, and gives a specific use case (verify success/error notifications). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_elements or get_screenshot.

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 says 'Use to verify success/error notifications after an action', providing clear context. It also explains the wait_ms parameter for toasts that animate in. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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