get_console

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get console log entries' without mentioning return format, side effects, whether logs are cleared on read, or any limitations. This is a significant gap 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. It contains no redundancy or filler, with every word contributing to meaning.

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 with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the basic purpose but does not describe what the returned data looks like or default behavior. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is an adequate but not fully complete picture.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter entries for last, level, and search. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it does not exceed the baseline expected when schema coverage is high.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction ('Get console log entries from the page') that clearly states the tool's function. It also differentiates from sibling tools like clear_console by indicating this retrieves entries, and adds purpose ('seeing errors, warnings, and debug 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 phrase 'Useful for seeing errors, warnings, and debug output' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying debugging scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or contrast with alternatives such as get_network or clear_console, so it stops short of a full 5.

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