Get Console Logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds important context about 'Starts monitoring on first call' which reveals this isn't just a passive read but initiates an active monitoring session. However, it doesn't disclose other critical behaviors: whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on subsequent calls. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and one behavioral aspect (monitoring initiation) but leaves significant gaps: no output format description, no error handling information, no guidance on tool sequencing with siblings, and incomplete behavioral transparency. For a tool that initiates monitoring, this is borderline sufficient.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 action ('Get console logs') and resource ('from a browser target'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_targets or navigate, which would require a 5. The phrase 'Starts monitoring on first call' adds useful behavioral context but doesn't address sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_targets (which might provide target indices) or execute_js (which might generate logs). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to call list_targets first to get targetIndex) or contextual constraints. The single sentence offers no usage context.

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