Start Raw Trace

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that trace streams can capture raw DOM, headers, values, frames, etc., which goes beyond annotations and warns about sensitivity.

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 informative and structured with preconditions, next steps, and a sensitivity note. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers usage context and behavioral aspects well, though parameter details are incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mentioning captureCookies, captureBodies, and acknowledgeRawCapture, but does not explain other parameters like outputDir, maxBodyBytes, captureDom, etc.

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 explicitly states that this tool is for reproducing multi-step browser failures, transient DOM changes, network races, etc., distinguishing it from sibling tools like monitor_stop and monitor_get_summary.

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 clear when-to-use scenarios and preconditions (authorized browser, acknowledgeRawCapture: true), and outlines next steps. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is specific enough.

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