browser_console

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

Given the absence of annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: what it covers (all console types, window.onerror, unhandledrejection), and critical limitations (cross-origin scripts marked, early inline errors possibly missed, document.write() issues). This provides excellent transparency for an agent.

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 well-structured with primary purpose, coverage, and boundaries in separate sections. It is informative but somewhat lengthy; a minor simplification could improve conciseness without losing key details.

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 parameters and behavioral limitations well, but it does not describe the output format or structure of the returned logs. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at the return type or content to be fully complete.

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?

All 4 parameters (level, limit, since, urlContains) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description only mentions level filtering and URL filtering briefly, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline 3.

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 browser console logs with level filtering, and specifies coverage (console.error/warn/log/debug, window.onerror, unhandledrejection). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_errors, leaving some ambiguity about when to use which.

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 such as browser_errors or browser_network. It only describes its own functionality and limitations, without any comparative or conditional usage advice.

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