browser_console_messages

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, so there is no contradiction. But the description's claim of returning 'all' console messages hides the default behavior: only messages at or above 'info' severity and only since the last navigation unless the 'all' parameter is explicitly true. This is meaningful behavioral information the description fails to convey.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. It is concise, though brevity comes at the cost of behavioral precision.

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?

The rich parameter schema and read-only annotations cover most invocation needs. Still, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify return format, default filtering, or session vs. navigation scope, so an agent could reasonably invoke it expecting an unfiltered dump on a bare call.

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%, so level, all, and filename are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning or usage context for any parameter, leaving the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns all console messages'), and the tool name makes it clear this is the browser console counterpart to siblings like browser_network_requests. However, the word 'all' overstates actual scope because the level filter and the all=false default mean a plain call does not return every console message.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings such as browser_network_requests, browser_snapshot, or browser_evaluate. The only usage signal is the implied need for console messages.

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