devtools_console

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is consistent. It adds detail about the entry structure (ts, level, text, url, line) and the buffered nature, but does not discuss side effects or limitations like buffer size or clearing.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a line listing entry fields, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Zero wasted words.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It explains the entry fields and scope. It could mention that it's a non-destructive read of the buffer, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a simple read tool.

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 100%, and the description essentially repeats the schema's parameter descriptions (filter by level, ISO timestamp). It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns buffered browser console messages, listing the entry fields and covered log levels. It distinguishes itself from siblings like devtools_js_errors or devtools_network_all by focusing on console logs.

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 and specifies which types are covered (log, warn, error, info, debug). However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternative devtools.

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