get_console_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds minor context by saying 'latest' and specifying the vConsole source, but does not disclose behavior like buffer limits, return format, or whether logs require the page to have vConsole enabled.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and context.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations, this is minimally viable. However, the absence of an output schema and the complete lack of parameter guidance means the agent is left to infer return shape and the roles of pageId/pluginId. The description is functional but bare.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the four parameters, but it does not mention level, limit, pageId, or pluginId at all. The parameter names and schema constraints provide some self-explanatory meaning, but the description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 ('Read'), identifies the exact resource ('console logs captured by vConsole on a connected mobile H5 page'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_network_requests and execute_javascript. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 clear context about when this tool is relevant: reading console logs captured by vConsole on a connected mobile H5 page. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious.

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