interceptor_browser_list_console

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

The description discloses that messages are buffered since browser launch and mentions message types, which is useful. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on read-only nature, authorization requirements, or potential side effects like clearing buffers.

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 two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core function, the second gives example types. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description could explain the output format or mention that filtering via parameters (types, text_filter) is supported. It covers the basic purpose but lacks optional completeness for a list tool with parameters.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description adds high-level context (buffer, types) but does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists console messages buffered since launch and provides example types (log, info, warning, error, debug). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_cookies or list_network_fields by focusing on console messages.

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 implies usage after launching a browser but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other list tools or evaluating JS directly. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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