Raw DevTools Protocol events

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which correctly conveys that this does not mutate the page. The description adds that events are buffered, but never discloses that reading clears the buffer by default (only the schema says so) nor that unsubscribe exists — both are behavioral facts an agent should not have to infer from the schema.

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 short sentences: the capability first, the prerequisite second. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 5-param tool with no output schema, it covers the buffer model and the domain-enablement prerequisite, which is the critical setup knowledge. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned events or the unsubscribe path, leaving a small gap for an agent that must decide which action to pass.

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 defaults for clear, limit, tabId and the action enum are already documented. The description's only added value is illustrating the event-name pattern syntax ("Network.*", "Page.loadEventFired"), which marginally extends the schema's 'Event name or "Domain.*"'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: subscribes to raw DevTools Protocol events of a tab and reads the buffered events, with example event names. It is clearly differentiated from cdp_send (which sends commands and enables domains), though the third action, unsubscribe, is never reflected in the description.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: enable the domain first with cdp_send if it is not already enabled. That is the main gotcha for CDP subscription. It does not distinguish subscribe from read from unsubscribe, nor say when to prefer this over higher-level siblings like network_requests or console_logs.

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