sleeper_console

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about whether the tool is read-only or destructive, whether it clears the console, how much data is returned, or any auth/rate-limit requirements. This is a complete omission for a browser-console tool.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no structure or front-loaded information to help an agent understand what the tool does before invoking it.

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 output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with mostly missing descriptions, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation. The description should explain scope, return behavior, and parameter roles, but provides none of that.

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 only 33% (only the profile parameter is described). The description adds no meaning for the tab or limit parameters and does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameter usage largely undocumented.

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 'Page console capture' names a resource and a vague action, but it does not specify what exactly is captured (console logs, messages, errors) or distinguish the tool from siblings like sleeper_snapshot, sleeper_read, or sleeper_network. It is a vague purpose rather than a clear verb+resource statement.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. With many sibling tools that also inspect page state, the agent is left to infer when sleeper_console is appropriate.

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