list_console_messages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety. The description adds the useful scoping detail that messages are only since the last navigation, but it does not disclose return format, pagination edge cases, or whether preserved messages are included by default (parameters cover that). This is adequate but not rich.

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 that immediately states the action and scope. No filler words or redundant information, earning it a top score.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and an annotation, the description covers the core purpose and data scope. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives or return shape, but the schema's parameter descriptions and the 'list' verb are sufficient for most use cases. Could be more complete by naming related tools, but overall solid.

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 each parameter (types, pageIdx, pageSize, includePreservedMessages) has a clear semantic in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'all', so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('List'), specifies the resource ('console messages'), and scopes it precisely ('for the currently selected page since the last navigation'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_console_message, which focuses on a single message.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for a selected page's console messages since navigation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_console_message for a single message, so it stops short of a 5.

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