playwright__browser_console_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral on top of that — notably it omits that the default scope is 'since last navigation' and that output can be written to a file, both of which change how an agent should call it.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently complete. Shortness here comes from omission, not economy.

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 a 100%-documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description need not carry return-value detail (no output schema exists). Still, for a tool whose default scope depends on session/navigation state, the one-line description leaves the agent without the context it needs to call it correctly.

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 100%, with the 'all', 'level', and 'filename' params each documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and its wording ('all console messages') arguably conflicts with the schema default where 'all' is false.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('console messages'), which is unambiguous against most siblings. It does not distinguish itself from a near sibling such as browser_network_requests or explain scope (session vs navigation), so it stops short of a 5.

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 (e.g. 'call after browser_navigate'), and no mention of alternatives for related data like network requests. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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