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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain key behaviors: whether it retrieves all logs or a subset, if it's read-only or has side effects, what format the logs are in, or if there are any limitations like rate constraints. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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, clear sentence: 'Get browser console logs.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is highly concise and well-structured for immediate comprehension.

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 the complexity of browser console logs (which could include various log types, timestamps, or levels) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'logs' entail (e.g., info, warnings, errors) or the return format, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's output and behavior in context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient and avoids redundancy. A baseline score of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary information.

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 'Get browser console logs' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('browser console logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_console_errors' or 'get_network_logs', which likely retrieve related but different types of logs, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_console_errors' or 'get_network_logs'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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