browser_console_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Returns' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description does not add extra behavioral context (e.g., output format or whether messages are cleared), but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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, focused sentence with no filler words. It could arguably add a bit more context, but it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and only three simple params, the description is mostly complete for a basic retrieval call. However, it does not mention the output shape, whether messages are cumulative, or any side effects beyond annotations, leaving some context implicit.

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% and each parameter has a clear explanation, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The baseline of 3 applies because the tool-level description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb ('Returns') and resource ('all console messages'), making the tool's purpose evident. It lacks a comparison to sibling tools, but the function is specific enough to distinguish from browser navigation, network, or screenshot tools.

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 versus alternatives such as browser_network_requests or browser_evaluate. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which it should be selected.

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