get_console_message

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 reveals the capture sources but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return object looks like, or what happens when an ID is not found. The 'get' verb implies a safe read, but this is not explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds relevant context about the message sources without unnecessary verbosity. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, how messages are captured, and has no output schema to worry about. However, without annotations or output schema, a bit more detail on the return value or error behavior would be beneficial, but it is not critical given the simplicity.

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 'id' and 'page' are described. The description text adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond the capture source context, which is not directly param-specific. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a captured console message'), and the method ('by ID'). It also specifies the sources of the messages (CDP Runtime.consoleAPICalled, Log.entryAdded, content-script interception), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_console_messages or get_network_request.

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?

Usage is implied: you need a message ID, presumably from a previous list_console_messages call. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion like 'instead of listing all messages.'

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