Read console output

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's job is additive context, which it delivers: it discloses that output is buffered, that the most recent matching entries are returned (ordering/truncation behavior), and that since_seq enables incremental retrieval. It omits buffer bounds or whether old entries are evicted, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the incremental-fetch hint follows naturally. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a read-only, six-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return ordering, and the key incremental pattern. It leaves the attach prerequisite and buffer-eviction behavior unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 levels, keyword, exclude_keywords, limit, and target_id are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only elaborates on since_seq, which is already explained in the schema, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and precise resource (buffered console messages, uncaught exceptions, browser log entries) scoped to 'an attached page'. The resource is naturally distinct from siblings like attach/detach/evaluate_js, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives one concrete usage pattern: 'Pass since_seq from a previous call to get only new entries,' which is genuinely actionable for incremental polling. However, there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a page be attached first?), and no mention of alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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