list_console_messages

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action and sources but does not disclose whether messages are cleared, return order, pagination, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with an incomplete behavioral picture.

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, precise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by relevant source details. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or wasted space.

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 description covers the core purpose and sources but does not explain the return format, default behavior, or filtering nuances. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally describe what the returned messages look like, which is a notable gap.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema provides the necessary semantic meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 ('List') and the resource ('captured console messages'), and specifies the exact data sources (CDP Runtime.consoleAPICalled, Log.entryAdded, content-script interception). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_network_requests or get_console_message.

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 implies usage for retrieving console messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tool names suggest context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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