Get console errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that errors are 'captured' (an accumulating buffer) and the schema's 'clear' param reveals buffer semantics, but the description says nothing about whether errors persist across reads, whether output is bounded/truncated, or what the response shape looks like.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the usage hint appended. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least indicate the return shape (list of entries, fields like message/level/timestamp) and whether reads are cumulative. That gap leaves the agent guessing about results.

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%, so both parameters (clear, game_id) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Return) and resource (JavaScript errors/warnings captured from the page), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like get_journal or inspect_ui. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, but the resource is unique enough that the distinction is obvious.

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 parenthetical '(useful for playtesting / QA)' implies the usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and names no alternatives. Usage is only weakly implied.

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