Read buffered console

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it uses CDP and collects log/warn/error messages, but does not disclose the effect of the 'clear' parameter or any state changes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 of 11 words, which is concise but omits critical parameter information. It front-loads the core purpose but fails to provide enough detail for effective use.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations of parameter behavior (clear, limit, types), usage context, and any relation to sibling tools. The agent needs more to select and invoke 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 coverage is 0% – the description does not mention any of the three parameters (clear, limit, types). With no parameter details in the description, agents cannot infer how to use them (e.g., limit can be up to 200, clear likely clears the buffer).

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 reads recent console API messages from the bound page. It uses specific verb 'return' and resource 'recent console API messages', and the source via CDP. It distinguishes from siblings like webgl_capture_frame or webgl_delete_capture which deal with captures, not console.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like webgl_runtime_log (which logs to console) or other tools. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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