list_console_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only discloses the time scope ('since the last navigation') but omits return format, pagination behavior, message types included, and what happens when no messages exist. The parameter includePreservedMessages extends the scope to the last 3 navigations, but the description does not mention this.

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 zero waste, which is good for conciseness. However, for a tool with seven parameters and no annotations, this length is arguably too terse to be appropriately sized.

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?

Given seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, parameter behavior, or how to filter messages, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call 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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving types, pageIdx, pageSize, and includeStackTraces completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. No meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 (List), resource (console messages), and scope (for the page since the last navigation). It distinguishes from the sibling get_console_message by implying a collection rather than a single message, but does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_console_message or list_network_requests. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or the relationship to other console-related tools.

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