browser_get_console

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the data is not visible to the proxy, console messages can include stack traces/internal URLs, and the 'clear' parameter controls buffer clearing. It also notes the prerequisite. It doesn't discuss output format or side effects beyond clear, but provides strong contextual detail.

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?

Well-structured with a bold lead sentence, a value proposition, prerequisite callout, examples of console message types, and an Args section. Each section adds information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized 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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter semantics (except tab_id), and use-case context. The presence of an output schema presumably covers return format. Missing tab_id documentation is the main gap, but overall this is a comprehensive description.

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 description explains 'level' with allowed values, 'clear' with its side effect, and 'session_name' default. However, it completely omits 'tab_id', which appears in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does for 3 of 4 parameters with one notable gap.

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 'Read JavaScript console output from the browser' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from proxy/network tools by noting 'Returns data the PROXY CANNOT SEE,' which distinguishes it from sibling traffic-related 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?

Provides explicit preconditions (browser_open and browser_go must be called first) and frames the tool's unique value proposition (data the proxy cannot see). It implies when to use it but does not explicitly name alternative tools or 'when not to use' scenarios, so it lacks a dedicated exclusion clause.

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