browser_console_messages

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-mutating behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that: it says 'returns all console messages' but does not clarify what 'all' means (e.g., from current page only? since last navigation?). The parameter descriptions fill some gaps, but the tool description itself adds little transparency.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word is necessary. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward read-only retrieval tool.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., array of objects with message, level, timestamp?) or describe side effects like clearing the console after reading. These gaps reduce confidence for an agent making autonomous decisions.

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 tool description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. The description's mention of 'all console messages' loosely ties to the `all` parameter but does not enhance understanding of `level` hierarchy or `filename` behavior.

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 returns console messages, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `browser_network_requests` and `browser_cookie_list` by its unique purpose. However, it could be more precise about filtering behavior (the `level` hierarchy) and scope (current session vs. navigation).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `browser_evaluate` to inject code that reads console, or `browser_network_requests` for network logs). There is no mention of prerequisites, caveats, or when not to use it. The agent must infer entirely from context.

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