browser_get_console_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's function and gives no details about whether the operation is read-only, what the logs contain, if it clears logs, or any side effects. This is a complete lack of transparency.

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 short phrase, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no structural value, no front-loaded key information, and lacks any sentences that earn their place beyond repeating the name.

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 no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what the return value looks like, how the limit parameter behaves, or how this tool fits into the broader browser automation context. A getter tool that is part of a large sibling set needs more contextual scaffolding, and it has none.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, adding no meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. It fails to explain the purpose, format, or effect of 'limit'.

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 '获取控制台日志' is a direct translation of the tool name 'browser_get_console_logs'. It restates the name without adding any specificity about the resource, scope, or behavior, and does not distinguish it from sibling log-related tools like browser_get_request_logs or browser_get_response_logs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any information about which log retrieval tool is appropriate.

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