List console messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: each line is prefixed with id and truncated to 200 characters, only the most recent 1000 messages are retained, and the opt-in rationale. These details help the agent set expectations without contradicting annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by explaining prerequisites and behavioral details. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema, so return values need not be spelled out. The description covers prerequisites, opt-in rationale, behavior (truncation, retention, id prefix), and points to get_console_message for full text. With only 4 optional params and an output schema, this is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, but it does add context about truncation and id use that relates to output quality. No extra param semantics are needed, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 construction: 'List console output collected for the selected page.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and its scope. It also differentiates from siblings by referencing get_console_message for full text and implying enable_console_collection as a prerequisite, making the purpose and boundary explicit.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Requires enable_console_collection first.' It also explains the consequence of not doing so ('without it this returns a reminder instead of messages') and provides reasoning (CDP Runtime domain, site detection). This gives clear when-to-use instructions and distinguishes from get_console_message by id.

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