get_console_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool captures and retrieves logs, but does not clarify whether it opens a browser, whether it is read-only, performance impact, or any limitations. Essential details like permission requirements or side effects are missing.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value, though the second sentence could be more tightly integrated. No fluff.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, nested object, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return format, pagination, or error handling. The tool's integration with other browser tools is not addressed.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description adds no meaning beyond the tool's general purpose. Parameters like 'filter', 'browser', 'maxLogs', and 'executeScript' remain unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them correctly.

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 captures browser console logs and lists supported types (errors, warnings, info, debug). It mentions debugging JavaScript issues. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_network_logs', missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 implies usage for debugging JavaScript issues but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, nor alternatives (e.g., when to prefer get_network_logs instead). There is no mention of prerequisites or edge cases.

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