list_console_messages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by stating the temporal scope ('since the last navigation'), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return shape, or how filtering options affect output. This is comparable to the get_calls calibration example.

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-formed sentence with no filler. The core action, resource, target, and time scope are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only list tool, the rich input schema and readOnlyHint cover most operational needs. The description is brief but sufficient, though it could optionally mention that the result is a list of message objects, since no output schema is present.

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%, so every parameter already has a clear meaning in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('console messages'), and a precise scope ('for the target page since the last navigation'). This naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_console_message (singular) and list_network_requests (different resource).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_console_message or list_network_requests. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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