get_console_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions that messages visible before connection are included, new output is captured, and exceptions include source-mapped stack traces. While it doesn't cover side effects of the 'clear' parameter in detail, the information added is valuable and goes beyond the schema.

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 purpose and key behaviors (pre-existing messages, source mapping). No extraneous information, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what data is returned and how it includes historical and new output. However, it does not describe the response format (e.g., array of objects with fields), which would improve 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'most-recent entries' for 'limit' but the schema already says 'Maximum number of most-recent entries'. No additional semantics for 'level' or 'clear'.

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 clearly states the tool returns browser console messages and uncaught exceptions, specifying the scope (pre-existing and new messages) and detail (full stack traces with source mapping). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_html' or 'evaluate_js'.

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 when console logs are needed, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or describe exclusions. Context is clear but lacks differentiation instructions.

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