Console logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds the retention window ('since it was first inspected'), the inclusion of uncaught exceptions, and the practical insight that console errors may not be visible on screen. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a concise, valuable usage rationale without repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return content (console output and uncaught exceptions) and the retrieval window. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers parameters, so an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and both parameters (target_id and limit) are already clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('recent console output and uncaught exceptions captured from the target'), which clearly distinguishes it from visual/DOM tools like screenshot and dom_snapshot. It also adds a meaningful temporal scope ('since it was first inspected').

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'The fastest way to see why something failed — errors that never appear on screen.' This implies it is preferred for diagnosing failures not visible in screenshots or DOM snapshots, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions.

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