browser_console_messages

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

The description is minimal and potentially misleading: 'all console messages' suggests no filtering, but the schema shows the tool filters by level (default info) and recency (since last navigation unless all=true). It discloses no default behavior or file-saving option, and adds no context beyond what the annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient, but it only restates what the tool name implies and does not pack in distinguishing or behavioral context that would earn the highest score.

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?

The tool is simple, has readOnlyHint=true, and a complete input schema that explains each parameter. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the return format beyond the filename parameter note, and the lack of usage guidance leaves some gaps.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with defaults and behaviors. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, and its use of 'all' could be confused with the `all` boolean parameter. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('console messages'), making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_network_requests or browser_snapshot, and the word 'all' is ambiguous about whether it means all levels or all messages since session start.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, mention prerequisites, or state exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name and schema.

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