log_to_console

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions logging to the console but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what format '$r' outputs in, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe use.

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 that is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative by clarifying '$r', but it earns high marks for brevity and directness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the logging behavior, output format, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving gaps in understanding for effective use in the provided context of debugging and inspection tools.

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%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'Element ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to or how it relates to logging. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Log an element to the browser/app console as $r' specifies the action (log) and target (element to console), but is vague about what '$r' represents and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_element_by_id' or 'highlight_element'. It states what it does but lacks specificity about the logging format or purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_element_by_id' for retrieving elements or 'highlight_element' for visual debugging, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for logging to the console.

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