browser_console_logs

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description does extra work by disclosing a side effect ('Installs a lightweight interceptor on first call') and the bounded nature of the result ('last N console messages'). This goes beyond a bare read-operation description, though it could clarify interceptor persistence or message format.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource appear first, followed by a critical behavioral caveat and a clear output summary.

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 one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behaviors: what is returned, how many messages, and the install-on-first-call side effect. Minor gaps like exact message object shape or lifecycle of the interceptor are not blocking for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the single 'count' parameter with default and meaning. The description adds no new parameter-level details, but that is acceptable because schema coverage is 100%, so it does not need to compensate for missing documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: console.log/warn/error messages from the page. It is instantly distinguishable from all sibling browser tools, none of which target console messages.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever recent page console messages are needed. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, relying on the agent to infer the use case from the tool's purpose.

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