browser_console_messages

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation with potentially open-ended data. The description adds value by specifying 'all console messages,' implying comprehensive retrieval, which complements the annotations without contradiction. However, it doesn't detail aspects like real-time vs. historical messages or format.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety), the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what 'returns' entails (e.g., format, structure, or examples of console messages), leaving gaps for an agent to understand the response fully.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.

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 'Returns all console messages' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (console messages), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'browser_network_requests' or 'scan_page' that might also return browser data. It's functional but lacks specificity about what 'all' encompasses.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'browser_network_requests' for network data or 'scan_page' for page analysis, the description doesn't help an agent decide when console messages are the appropriate target versus other browser monitoring tools.

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