browser_get_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose whether retrieving logs is destructive by default (the 'clear' parameter is optional). It also fails to mention if logs are only available after navigation or if the tool clears logs automatically before returning.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent receives (e.g., array of log entries, each with message, level, timestamp). It does not. Also, it does not clarify behavior when no logs exist or when the tab is closed.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and schema; e.g., it does not clarify what 'console log entries' includes (errors, warnings, logs) or the format of the returned data.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('captured console log entries') with context ('from a tab'). Among the sibling tools (e.g., browser_get_content, browser_evaluate), none duplicate this purpose, making it distinct and specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as browser_evaluate for runtime expressions or browser_get_content for page source. The description does not mention prerequisites like enabling console capture or tab activity.

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