browser_get_console_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns grouped errors and exceptions, but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, what prerequisites exist (e.g., an active session), how grouping works, or the structure of the output. This is minimal disclosure beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids filler or redundant details, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 is relatively simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description gives the general idea but omits details about the return format, the meaning of 'likely categories', and how the limit parameter affects results. It is adequate as a minimal viable description but leaves some gaps for an agent to work with.

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?

The schema provides description for sessionId but not for limit, leaving 50% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, failing to clarify how 'limit' behaves or whether it caps the number of errors per category or overall. Since the description does not compensate for the missing limit semantics, parameter understanding is incomplete.

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 specifies the tool's behavior with a specific verb ('Return') and a well-defined resource: grouped console errors and uncaught exceptions with likely categories. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool browser_get_console_logs by emphasizing aggregation and categorization, which is a clear scope differentiator.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_get_console_logs. It doesn't mention that raw logs are available elsewhere or explain under what circumstances the grouped/error-focused view is preferable. There is no stated context or exclusion criteria.

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