Get console messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or whether messages are cleared after retrieval. With annotations carrying most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short at 3 words, which is not necessarily concise but under-specified. It lacks front-loading of critical information like filtering capability or scope. It could be shorter with clearer meaning, but it earns a 3 because it's not verbose.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral guidance, the description is incomplete for a function that returns diagnostic data. It doesn't explain return values, filtering semantics, or message lifetime. The annotations help with safety but not with completeness.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. The description only says 'console messages' without explaining what 'level', 'filename', 'all', or '_meta' mean. It adds no meaningful behavior beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 'Returns all console messages' clearly identifies the resource (console messages) but is vague because 'all' is ambiguous — it could mean all levels, all files, or all messages regardless of filtering. It doesn't specify the scope (e.g., current page, session) or differentiate from siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many browser tools, some like browser_network_requests also return diagnostic data, but no comparison or exclusions are provided. The description lacks both explicit and implied usage context.

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