get_console_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'), whether it requires authentication, if messages persist across page reloads, or what happens to ordering. It only mentions filtering and limiting, which are already covered by the schema. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and follow with the primary filtering capability. No wasted words.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no annotations, three parameters, and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain return format, ordering, pagination behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools. It should do more to compensate for the complete lack of annotations and output schema.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters (type, limit, since) with defaults and descriptions. The description only mentions 'type' and 'limit' filtering but doesn't add any syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get browser console messages'. This is clear about the operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_console_errors (which presumably filters to errors) or get_console_stats, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this general-purpose retrieval over the specialized 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?

The description implies usage (retrieve console messages with optional type filter) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_console_errors or get_console_stats. An agent must infer that this is the general-purpose tool and siblings are specialized.

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