browser_get_request_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says '获取请求日志' without addressing pagination, limits, ordering, whether logs are cleared, or what the output structure is. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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 extremely short, which might be seen as concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential information about the tool's behavior and usage, making it closer to a tautology than a helpful, well-structured description.

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 tool is a simple log retrieval operation, but the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'request logs' means, how the limit parameter works, whether output is returned, or any relevant details that would make the tool usable. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this incompleteness critical.

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 input schema has a single 'limit' parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention 'limit' or explain its meaning, default value, or effect, providing no additional value beyond the bare 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 '获取请求日志' translates to 'Get request logs', which clearly states the tool's verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like browser_get_response_logs or browser_get_console_logs, as it lacks specificity about the log type or source.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or examples, leaving the agent without criteria for selecting it over other logging tools.

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