get_browser_errors

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 behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the scope (uncaught exceptions + unhandled promise rejections) and included data (message, stack trace, DOM context), but it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it clears errors, or any limitations (e.g., buffer size beyond the limit parameter).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key specifics. Every clause adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity, optional parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It might benefit from noting that it returns a list of errors or that it does not affect browser state, but the current description is sufficiently complete for basic usage.

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%: both 'limit' and 'url_filter' have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose: to retrieve browser runtime errors (uncaught exceptions and unhandled promise rejections). It specifies the resource ('browser runtime errors') and the verb ('取得' / get), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_console_logs by targeting errors rather than logs.

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 makes it clear this tool is for debugging runtime errors, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_console_logs for console messages'), so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough.

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