browser_get_response_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 does not disclose whether logs are cleared after retrieval, whether the operation is read-only, how logs are ordered, or what the return payload looks like. The description offers zero behavioral 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?

While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. The single phrase restates the tool name and provides no useful details, so it does not 'earn its place' in a meaningful way.

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?

Despite the tool being simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description is critically incomplete. It lacks any explanation of behavior, parameter semantics, or relationship to other log-related tools. An agent cannot determine how to invoke it correctly or interpret results from this description alone.

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 parameter 'limit' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain the 'limit' parameter, nor does it compensate for the schema gap. The agent receives no semantic information about the parameter's meaning or effect.

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 '获取响应日志' is a direct Chinese translation of the tool name 'browser_get_response_logs', essentially restating the name without adding any new information about scope, behavior, or differentiation from sibling tools like browser_get_request_logs. It is tautological rather than explanatory.

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 such as browser_get_request_logs or browser_get_console_logs. No context, preconditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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