browser_console_messages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format handling, file saving behavior, or any performance implications. For a read-only getter, this is minimally adequate, but it doesn't go beyond what the annotations already imply.

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 no filler words. Every part states the core action without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool and is easy to parse quickly.

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 three well-documented parameters and clear annotations, the description is almost sufficient. The only missing context is the implicit assumption that it operates on the current browser tab/session, but that is apparent from the tool name and sibling context. The description doesn't need to explain return values since there is no output schema, and the parameters clarify 'all' and 'level'. Overall, it's complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, every parameter (all, level, filename) is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides; it simply states the action. Per calibration, the baseline is 3 when the schema carries the parameter documentation, so this 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('console messages'), which clearly indicates the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate among siblings, but the sibling tools are about navigation, network, and interactions, so the purpose is distinct without needing further clarification. The phrase 'all console messages' is clear enough, though it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., current page vs. session) without reading the parameters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for reading console output, nor does it suggest conditions for use (e.g., after a navigation or for debugging). There are no exclusions or references to other tools like browser_network_requests, so an agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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