browser_console_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'with filtering' suggests parameterizable behavior. However, it does not disclose details such as whether messages are only from the current page, whether filters are combined, or any side effects. This is minimal but acceptable for a seemingly simple read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and the resource. Every word contributes to meaning, and it remains brief without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, and annotations are absent. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the actual messages, count, or format) or mention any prerequisites or limitations. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 80% with descriptions for url, text, limit, and offset, while level has an enum but no description. The description only says 'with filtering,' which adds little beyond the structured schema. Since the schema already defines most parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('browser console messages'), and adds a scope modifier ('with filtering'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_network_requests (which gets network data) or browser_extract_content (which gets page content), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not mention typical use cases (e.g., debugging JavaScript errors) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the name and schema alone.

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