capture_worker_js

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the patching behavior and return values but does not warn about side effects or whether it is destructive. Some behavioral aspects are omitted.

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 concise, with a clear structure: purpose, use case, instructions, return. No unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured with explicit parameter descriptions.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description provides moderate completeness: it covers the main purpose and return structure of workers but lacks detail on events and parameter semantics. An agent might need to infer or use defaults.

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 0%, yet the description only explains duration_ms implicitly. The clear and max_events parameters are not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 it patches the Worker constructor and records workers, with a specific use case for VMP bytecode in Web Workers. This distinguishes it from siblings like capture_ws_payloads or hook_jsvmp_interpreter.

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?

It explicitly states when to use (when VMP bytecode is delivered via a Web Worker) and gives instructions (install patch, leave page alone for duration_ms). It does not explicitly list alternatives but provides clear context for when to invoke.

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