browser_console

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read of recent console output but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it clears the console, how many messages are returned, or what happens when the limit is omitted.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. For a simple retrieval tool this is appropriately sized, even though it is under-informative in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confidently determine how many messages are returned, whether the limit parameter controls that, or whether the operation has any side effects on the console buffer.

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% and the description does not mention the single optional `limit` parameter at all. The word 'últimos' loosely implies recency, but the meaning, default value, and maximum of `limit` are left entirely undocumented.

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 names the resource (console messages and JS errors) and scopes it to the active tab. It is specific enough to distinguish this from generic browsing tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like browser_events or browser_trace.

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 such as browser_events, browser_trace, or browser_eval. The active-tab context implies a debugging use case, but no exclusions or routing advice is provided.

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