get_console_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get captured console messages' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify if it requires active capture, what happens if no capture is running, or the format/timing of returned data. It mentions 'captured' which hints at prerequisites but lacks detail on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word ('Get', 'captured', 'console messages') contributes essential information, making it efficient and immediately scannable.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'captured' entails (e.g., dependency on 'start_console_capture'), the structure of returned messages, or behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. Given the complexity and lack of structured coverage, more context is needed for effective use.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's details about filtering by types, pattern, limit, etc. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like example usage or parameter interactions.

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 'Get captured console messages' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('captured console messages'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_console_logs' by focusing on retrieval rather than clearing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_network_logs' or 'get_page_text' which are different data sources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing to start console capture first (implied by 'captured'), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_logs' for different log types or 'get_page_text' for different data. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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