debugger-log-registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses return items (log file path, entry counts by level, message clusters), supported runtimes (Hermes, V8), and edge case (empty stats if no log data). It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the context implies it.

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 four sentences, front-loading purpose, then listing return items, runtime info, usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though one sentence on 'Returns empty stats...' could be merged, but overall efficient.

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, the description explains return format (log file path, entry counts, message clusters), mentions supported runtimes, and covers edge case of empty stats. With low parameter count and no nested objects, the tool is fully described for agent invocation.

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% but description adds significant context: for device_id, it explains it should be same as from list-devices or debugger-connect, preferring list-devices id; for port, it notes 'ignored for Chromium'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Get a summary of all console logs captured from the app's JS runtime', specifying the verb (Get), resource (summary of all console logs), and scope (from the app's JS runtime). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on log summaries, with no direct sibling overlapping.

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 explicitly says 'Use when investigating warnings, errors, or unexpected output — call this first for an overview, then read the returned file for details.' This provides clear when-to-use context and suggests a workflow, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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