Get Browser Console Logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the message types and that entries are timestamped, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether logs are cleared on read, whether output is truncated/paginated, or whether it covers only the current page versus all frames — meaningful gaps for a diagnostics tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the use cases. Every clause earns its place with no filler or restated metadata.

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?

With no output schema, the description does some return-value work by naming message types and timestamps, and the use-case list frames the tool's role well. It is nearly complete, missing only retention/truncation and frame-scope details that would matter for a diagnostics tool.

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 both mode and sessionId are already documented in the schema, including the enum and the headless-session behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (JavaScript console output from the current page) and enumerates the message types captured (log, warn, error, info with timestamps). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very close sibling browser_page_errors, leaving the agent to guess which to pick.

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 'Use this to:' list gives concrete scenarios (debugging JS errors, failed API calls, runtime exceptions, app logs, diagnosing page breakage), so the when-to-use context is clear. It stops short of naming alternatives like browser_page_errors or browser_network, which an agent comparing diagnostics tools would want.

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