get_console_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the tool can be invoked independently, that it may auto-connect to the browser and start monitoring if no listener is active, and that it can optionally clear the log cache after retrieval. It does not discuss whether starting a listener has side effects or interrupts existing listeners, but for a diagnostic tool the disclosed behaviors are reasonable.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the auto-connect behavior, then the filtering/count/clear options. It is informative and not bloated, though it could be slightly improved by separating the filtering features from the side-effectful auto-connect clauses.

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?

The description explains the tool's triggering behavior and parameter options, which is generally sufficient for an optional-parameter diagnostic tool. However, there is no output schema, so the return format of the logs is not documented, and the description does not clarify whether logs are returned as a list of strings, objects, or with timestamps. Since the tool is likely to be used for debugging, describing the result format would add value.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (clear, count, filter, browserPath) with descriptions. The tool description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, and while it restates the filtering and count capabilities in prose, it does not add format constraints or examples. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries 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 Chinese description names a specific verb and resource — retrieving the JLC EDA browser console logs — and distinguishes it from sibling logging tools like eda_sys_log_find (which searches the extension log) and eda_sys_log_export (which exports it). It also specifies that this tool can be invoked standalone and will auto-connect the browser and start listening if no console listener exists yet, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to fetch browser console logs, standalone) and the supporting behaviors it triggers (auto-connect, start listener). However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or name alternatives such as eda_sys_log_find/eda_sys_log_export for extension logs, which would be useful to disambiguate the console-log scope.

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