console_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the lifecycle of the capture hook and the self-navigation edge case, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether clearing occurs, potential side effects, or the exact format of the returned logs.

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 concise sentences. The first states the tool's purpose, and the second adds essential lifecycle context. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function and a key edge case. However, it omits the meaning of the 'clear' parameter and does not explicitly state the return format, leaving some context incomplete.

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 one param (clear) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. The agent is left to infer what 'clear' does, which is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 tool returns console messages and uncaught errors captured since the last navigation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_timings and install_console_capture by specifying its output scope.

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?

It explains when the capture is active (after navigate()) and instructs to call install_console_capture() to re-arm if the page navigated itself. This provides clear context for when to use this tool and how to prepare for it, though it does not explicitly list cases where an alternative should be used.

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