console_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the --enable-observers prerequisite and explains the polling/draining behavior of sinceSeq and clear, but it does not describe the output structure, default scope, or what happens when the buffer is empty.

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 sentences with the resource in the first, use case in the second, and high-value usage pattern in the third. Zero filler, 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 prerequisites and polling pattern are covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what entries look like (fields, ordering, or whether levels are included). An agent can call it, but not fully predict the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'poll' and 'drain' paraphrases the schema's sinceSeq and clear descriptions rather than adding new meaning.

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 identifies console logs and uncaught errors as the resource and contrasts them with 'what it looks like afterwards,' which distinguishes it from visual inspection tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

It tells the agent when to use this tool ('find out WHY a page misbehaved') and implicitly contrasts it with look-at-the-page tools. It does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a fully explicit routing rule.

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