browser_console

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description usefully adds the content types captured (errors, failed requests, dialogs), but says nothing about the mutating effect of the 'clear' parameter, buffering, or whether logs persist across navigations.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the most important content types are front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a verb-led instruction, but no words are wasted.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a 'clear' flag that appears to wipe captured data, the definition is too thin to invoke safely. An agent cannot know what clear does or what limit/onlyErrors control.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description is the only place semantics could be added — and it adds none. 'clear', 'limit', and 'onlyErrors' are never mentioned; 'onlyErrors' is only obliquely implied by the phrase 'page errors'.

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 names the specific resources retrieved — console messages, page errors, failed requests, dialogs — so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It omits an action verb and gives no differentiation from the sibling chrome_console, which appears to expose the same data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as chrome_console or browser_dialog despite heavy sibling overlap. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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