console_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: automatic collection after connection and a maximum of 500 logs. It does not describe the return format, behavior when no logs exist, or whether logs are cleared after retrieval, leaving moderate 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence in Chinese. It front-loads the primary action ('获取'), then adds the two most relevant details (auto-collection and limit) without unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and key constraints. However, it does not specify the exact return structure or nil/empty behavior, which would be expected given the lack of a structured output schema. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter 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 clearly states the action '获取' (get) and the resource '控制台日志' (console logs), adding specific context about automatic collection after connection and a 500-item limit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like exception_messages, which target a different log type.

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 phrase '连接后自动收集' (automatically collected after connection) provides a clear precondition and timing for usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the context is strong enough to guide a correct selection.

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