browser_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'view/clear' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether clearing is permanent), required permissions, return format, or how the session parameter affects behavior. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it may be under-specified rather than efficient. It conveys the core purpose in one phrase, but the lack of detail suggests incomplete guidance rather than deliberate brevity.

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 has 3 parameters, one required (action), and no output schema, the description does not provide enough to call it correctly. It does not explain valid action values, the meaning of 'json' or 'session', or what the tool returns. An agent would need to guess or inspect other sources.

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. However, the parameter descriptions are minimal: 'JSON output' is confusing (input vs output), 'Console action' is vague, and 'Session name' lacks context. The tool description adds no additional clarification, so the score stays at baseline.

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 clear verb (view/clear) and a specific resource (console logs and errors), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other browser features like network, storage, or DOM. However, it is ambiguous whether the tool supports actions beyond 'view' and 'clear', and how these are selected.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like browser_state or browser_network may also surface console-related information, but no exclusions or selection criteria are provided. The agent must infer usage from the vague purpose.

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