browser_console_messages

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 only says 'List captured console messages,' which implies a read operation but doesn't state whether it's read-only, whether it clears the console, or whether it returns a snapshot or a stream. The term 'captured' is vague and doesn't explain the capture process or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that could have non-obvious behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List captured console messages') and provides helpful examples in parentheses. There is zero fluff, and every word earns its place. It is optimally structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It tells the agent what it does. However, it omits details about the return format, whether messages are ordered, or if there's any filtering capability. It also doesn't clarify whether 'captured' means all messages since page load or only new ones since the last call. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. It adds no extra meaning beyond the empty schema, which is acceptable given there's nothing to describe.

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 tool lists captured console messages, with examples of message types (log/warn/error). This is specific and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools. The verb 'list' and resource 'captured console messages' are clear, but the lack of explicit sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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. While there are no obviously similar siblings, the description doesn't mention any conditions for use, such as requiring prior capture or being the default for console inspection. It simply states what it does without context on when it's appropriate.

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