get_console_messages

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

Annotations already mark this as potentially destructive, and the description adds crucial nuance: only clear=true clears the buffer, only the originating session may do so, other sessions get capture_busy, and non-clearing reads are shared. It also explains the exact effect of filter='user'. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Three focused sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the next two add essential behavioral and filtering details. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted structure, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the core operation, destructive-session semantics, sharing behavior, and filtering. An output schema exists, so return-shape documentation is unnecessary. However, because six parameters exist with zero schema coverage, leaving offset/timeout/max_items/session_id unexplained prevents the description from being fully complete.

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% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only explains clear and filter. offset, timeout, max_items, and session_id are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults, and session_id in particular is ambiguous without explanation.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('captured console messages and exceptions from a real-browser tab'), and clarifies the pagination concept ('a page'). This makes its role clear and distinguishes it from console-capture start/stop siblings and from execute_js.

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 text strongly implies this tool is used after a console capture has been created by mentioning 'capture's originating MCP session', but it never explicitly says 'use after console_capture_start' or identifies situations where an alternative should be chosen. Parameter-level guidance is provided, but tool-selection guidance is only implicit.

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