DevTools issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that results come from the Issues panel rather than the console, but says nothing about ordering, severity, pagination, or what the 'clear' side effect means for the page state.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and source of truth, with the category enumeration serving the purpose of scope definition. 'and more' is slightly vague but does not waste space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of indicating what comes back; it never says whether results include severity, counts, or ordering. For a read-only list tool with rich annotations this is adequate but leaves a real gap about the response shape.

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 documents all three parameters (clear, limit, tabId) including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists') and a precise resource ('problems the DevTools Issues panel detected on the page'), then enumerates concrete issue classes (CORS, mixed content, CSP, deprecated APIs) that make the tool's scope tangible. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like console_logs or network_requests, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 category list implies when the tool is useful (diagnosing page-level browser warnings rather than console output), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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