Console log entries

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint=true: it discloses in-memory buffering, a 500-entry cap, connection-only scope, and the consequence that nothing before connect is visible. That last point is the kind of non-obvious constraint that would silently produce empty results otherwise.

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?

Three short sentences: what it reports, what each entry contains, then the constraints and sequencing advice. Front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information.

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, the description compensates by naming the entry fields (level, text, source) and the retention/scope limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly, or to interpret an empty result, is missing.

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 100% and the single 'limit' param already documents 'newest first, default 20'. The description adds nothing about the limit or ordering, which is fine given the schema, but it also doesn't reinforce default-vs-max behavior. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report console messages the page produced') and even names the underlying protocol event (BiDi log.entryAdded), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling browser_console, which is the one place an agent could confuse the two, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete operational sequencing – 'open the page and act first, then read' – which is exactly the guidance needed for a connection-scoped buffer. It's clear about context but never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, so no exclusions.

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