console_get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the capture semantics, the Chrome pre-attach limitation, and a workaround. It also implies a non-destructive read operation, though it does not mention that clear=true will empty the buffer or that include_agent hides DevCDP's own diagnostics.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core read action, incremental cursor pattern, and key limitation are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful operational information.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a solid picture of what is returned, how to page through results, and the major environment constraint. It leaves some output-shape details unspecified, but the essential context for correctly using the tool is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining the cursor parameter as a nextCursor pattern from a previous call. It does not detail clear/level/limit/since/include_agent, but those parameters are already fully described in the input schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read console output captured since attach.' It also identifies the contents (logs, warnings, uncaught exceptions with file, line, and stack), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like console_evaluate, console_clear, and network_get_requests.

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 gives practical usage guidance: pass cursor=nextCursor from a previous call for incremental reads, and note that pre-attach messages won't be replayed unless the action is reproduced or page_reload is called. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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