Attach to a page

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

No annotations are given, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior—recent messages are replayed on attach, and attaching before reproduction avoids missing messages—but omits permissions, side effects, idempotency, and whether the operation is reversible. It provides some transparency but leaves key operational traits unstated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key timing caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and a critical usage caveat well. It could mention the relationship with detach or get_console for a fuller workflow picture, but it is largely complete for the attach action itself.

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%; the sole parameter target_id is fully documented as 'Target id from list_targets'. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Connect') and resource ('WebView page'), and describes the exact effect: starting to buffer console output and uncaught exceptions. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_console (read buffered output), detach (stop), and list_targets (discover targets), even without naming them.

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?

Provides a clear condition for use: 'attach before reproducing an issue to be sure nothing is missed.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., get_console for reading without buffering) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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