console_capture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns the last N messages, which is consistent. No additional behavioral details (e.g., effect of clear parameter) are disclosed.

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 consists of two short sentences with no extra words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the use case.

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 simple capture tool with a complete input schema and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does and when to use it. It could mention the output format (e.g., list of messages with level and text) but is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond implying the limit via 'last N messages,' but the schema already defines clear, level, and limit clearly.

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 it captures browser console output (log/warn/error) and returns the last N messages. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which capture console output.

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 says to call it 'to check for runtime errors and warnings,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives like run_js.

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