playwright__browser_console_messages

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema. It says 'all' but the schema's 'all' parameter defaults to false, meaning it returns only recent messages by default. This slight mismatch without clarification reduces transparency. The description does not mention level filtering behavior or the filename side effect.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not earn its place because it omits essential context like filtering behavior, session scope, or return format. Every sentence should add value; this one is too vague.

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 3 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description should provide a high-level overview of behavior and return value. It fails to mention that messages are cleared on navigation by default, that level includes more severe messages, or that filename saves to a file. The tool is relatively simple, but the description is still incomplete.

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 well-documented parameters (all, level, filename). The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per rubric, high coverage supports a baseline of 3.

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 'Returns all console messages' clearly states the verb (returns) and resource (console messages). The title 'Get console messages' reinforces this. While it distinguishes from siblings like network_requests by topic, it could be more specific about the scope (browser page console) and the fact that 'all' is controlled by the 'all' parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_requests or when to combine with other tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded) or context (e.g., after navigation). The single sentence gives no usage direction.

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