browser_console_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the console is left intact or define what 'recent' means. This is a moderate gap for a tool that reads browser state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the action, the resource, the recency constraint, and the severity categories.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-annotation read tool with an output schema, the definition is largely sufficient. The only minor omissions are an explicit no-side-effect statement and a precise definition of 'recent,' both unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 only parameter, level, is fully described in the schema with allowed values and a default. The description's mention of 'errors, warnings, logs' aligns with those levels but adds no real semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('Return'), a concrete resource ('recent browser console messages'), and the message categories included. Among the browser_* siblings it is clearly the only console-inspection tool, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you need recent console errors, warnings, or logs during browser automation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but for a simple diagnostic read operation the context is sufficiently clear.

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