browser_console_messages

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but says nothing about how the tool behaves. It does not mention whether messages are read from the current page, whether the console is cleared, what output format is expected, or any side effects. This is a critical transparency gap.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase. It is front-loaded and to the point, but this brevity sacrifices essential detail, making it somewhat under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain return value structure, filtering semantics, or how the tool interacts with the browser state, leaving the agent without enough information to use it reliably.

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 fully documents both parameters (level and _agent_id) with descriptions, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. However, it also does not add any contextual information about the level filter, such as acceptable values, allowed combinations, or the default behavior when omitted.

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 action (获取/retrieve) and resource (控制台消息/console messages), which effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_network_requests. However, it lacks specificity about the exact scope (e.g., current page vs. all tabs) and what types of console messages are included.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as browser_network_requests or browser_snapshot. The description simply states what it does without any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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