browser_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. It discloses the '[Disabled]' operational state, the shared debugger infrastructure ('captures both network requests and console output'), and the buffer clearing behavior. Does not describe return format or error states when capture is inactive, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: status/purpose first, prerequisites second, usage guidance third. Every clause provides actionable information. The parenthetical about debugger behavior efficiently explains the coupling between network and console capture.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers operational state, prerequisites, and parameter semantics comprehensively. Minor deduction for not describing the return structure (log format/timestamp fields) given the absence of an output schema.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic context: 'tabId' requires active capture, 'level' filters to specific severities ('errors, warnings'), and 'clear' empties the buffer after reading. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('console log messages') + scope ('from a browser tab'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_get_network_requests or browser_clear_console_logs. The '[Disabled]' prefix immediately signals operational status.

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?

Explicitly states the critical prerequisite that 'browser_enable_network_capture' must be active, guiding agents to use that tool first. Mentions filtering capability ('Filter by level to see only errors, warnings'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives (e.g., vs. browser_clear_console_logs), but the prerequisite guidance is strong.

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