get_console_errors

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It mentions logs are captured since session opened or last call, hinting at consumption behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that by default (clear=true) the buffer is cleared after reading, which is important for repeated calls.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey function and use case. No fluff or redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it omits details about the return format (structure of errors/logs), which could help the agent process results. Adequate but 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters clearly (session_id, clear). The description adds value by explaining the temporal scope ('since it was opened or since last call'), which relates to the clear parameter and provides context beyond the schema.

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 console errors and logs from a session, with a specific time window (since opened or last call). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_network_log by focusing on console data.

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 suggests use for 'passive monitoring without running steps', providing context but no explicit when-not or alternative tools. It stops short of guiding the agent to avoid using it during active test steps.

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