get_console_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavioral traits: side effect of optionally clearing cache, return format (JSON array with timestamp, level, text), and prerequisite. It does not cover potential errors or rate limits, but for a read operation, it is fairly transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: core function first, then side effects, prerequisites, return format, use cases, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format. It covers prerequisites, side effects, and use cases. Missing error handling or behavior when no active tab, but overall complete for a tool with 2 optional parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the interaction between consecutive calls when 'clear' is true, going beyond the schema's description. It also reiterates the effect of level_filter. This extra context elevates it above baseline.

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 tool retrieves cached console messages with various levels and uncaught exceptions. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_network_logs and get_custom_events by focusing on console logs.

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 provides explicit use cases (debug script errors, monitor page health, inspect exception traces) and mentions alternatives (DevTools Console, error logging services). Prerequisites (active Chrome tab) are noted, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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