get_console_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add value by stating the log categories and the Chrome-only limitation, but it does not mention whether logs are live/cached, what the return format is, or how the level filter affects output. This leaves meaningful gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the platform limitation is stated efficiently at the end. Every word 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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description does not need to explain much. It clearly states the return subject and the platform constraint, and the optional parameter is fully defined in the schema. A little more detail about the return format would improve it, but it is otherwise complete enough.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the single `level` parameter is self-documenting through its enum values and default. The description mentions 'errors, warnings, info', which loosely aligns with the enum, but it does not explicitly explain the `level` parameter or how it filters results. The schema provides most of the parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource, 'browser console logs', and further scopes it to '(errors, warnings, info)'. It also names the platform restriction 'Chrome only', which helps distinguish it from similar tools like get_network_logs.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need browser console logs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_network_logs, get_session_log, or when not to use it. The 'Chrome only' constraint is useful but not full usage guidance.

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