get_console_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'MCP 连接后产生的日志,' which hints that only logs after the MCP connection are returned, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, potential side effects, or other traits like whether logs are cleared on retrieval. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff or redundant information. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function in minimal space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain behavior and return expectations. It only provides a terse statement of purpose and a vague qualifier about MCP connection. For a tool that returns console logs, it lacks details about the log structure, events, or limitations, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (level and limit) with descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets page console logs ('获取页面控制台日志'), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_network_requests, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The parenthetical 'MCP 连接后产生的日志' adds a scoping detail but could be clearer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that network logs are handled elsewhere or provide any context for choosing console logs over other inspection tools. The description only says what it does, not when to use it.

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