Get console message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds valuable context beyond that: it requires enable_console_collection to have been called, and explains that the CDP Runtime domain is disabled by default because enabling it is detectable by sites. This is meaningful operational context that goes beyond structured fields.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: primary function, comparison to sibling, and prerequisite/rationale. No fluff or redundancy; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 read-by-id tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage guidance, sibling differentiation, and prerequisite. Annotations cover safety, and the output schema covers return format. Nothing important 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description: 'Message id, as shown in square brackets by list_console_messages.' The description simply refers to 'by id' without adding further detail, but the schema description is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies because parameter information is well-covered by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Read one console message in full, by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_console_messages, which truncates messages. The first sentence alone fully defines the tool's primary function.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: when a complete stack trace or error payload is needed because list_console_messages truncates to 200 characters. It also names the prerequisite call (enable_console_collection) and explains why, giving the agent clear context for when this tool is available.

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