页面错误列表

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the aggregating nature and the returned fields (URL and call stack). However, it omits ordering/recency, whether results reflect a live session or persisted capture, deduplication, and pagination behavior. Useful surface, but not full disclosure.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core content (what error types are captured) is front-loaded. Efficient for the complexity level.

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 low-complexity, one-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate about content but silent on ordering, session scope, and how to interpret or page results. Minimum-viable rather than complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional limit parameter is already documented as '最多返回条数，默认 100'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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 verb (列出) plus the resource (errors) and enumerates the sources it aggregates: uncaught exceptions, console.error, log errors, and renderer crashes. It is clear what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling console_read, which also surfaces console output, so it stops short of 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 on when to use this instead of console_read, console_clear, or events_read is given. There is no mention of live vs. historical scope, retention, or exclusions. The agent must infer eligibility from the sibling list alone.

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