browser_console_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all console messages' entails (e.g., format, scope).

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 concise with a single sentence ('Returns all console messages'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's core function.

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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, read-only operation), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., message format, structure), leaving a gap in completeness for the agent.

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%, with the parameter 'level' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('all console messages'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_network_requests' or 'browser_snapshot', which also retrieve browser data but for different resources.

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. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and purpose alone.

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