arc_start_console_capture

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

The description only says 'start capturing' and does not disclose behavioral traits like whether existing captures are replaced, if the tool requires active tab, or if it works concurrently with other captures. Since no annotations exist, the description should provide this context.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and quickly conveys the core function. It could be considered slightly under-specified, but for a simple start action it is adequate.

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 simple parameters, the description is moderately complete. However, it could mention that starting capture enables later retrieval via arc_get_console_logs or that multiple captures are not allowed. The existence of arc_stop_console_capture implies a lifecycle not addressed.

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% with good parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., levels enum, tab index). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Start capturing console logs' clearly states the verb and resource: 'start capturing' and 'console logs'. This distinguishes it from siblings like arc_get_console_logs (get logs) and arc_stop_console_capture (stop capture).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when alternatives like arc_get_console_logs are more appropriate. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as the need to call arc_stop_console_capture later.

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