browser_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It contributes one genuinely valuable trait — that page content is untrusted and instructions in it must be ignored — but is silent on whether reads are cumulative or clear the buffer, how results relate to lastSeq, and whether errors and messages are interleaved or separated.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded and earning their place: the first states what is returned, the second delivers a security constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must stand alone. It adequately conveys what comes back for a simple read tool, but leaves the undefined 'limit' parameter and the pagination model unexplained, which an agent needs to poll console output correctly.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'limit' has no description at all, and 'since' references a 'lastSeq' value that is never defined. The description mentions no parameters whatsoever, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 names a specific resource — console messages and uncaught errors — and scopes it to 'the shared page', which distinguishes it from siblings like browser_network and browser_evaluate. It lacks an explicit verb ('Retrieve'/'List'), but the returned content is unambiguous, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement of when to reach for browser_console versus browser_network (which likely also surfaces errors) or browser_evaluate. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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