Get Browser Page Errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does useful work by defining what is semantically captured (window 'error' events, uncaught exceptions that stopped script execution) rather than just restating the name. It stops short of covering capture/return mechanics, session prerequisites, or whether errors are drained per call.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool reads, then the sibling differentiation, then the trigger. Slightly chatty with quoted 'error' and em-dash asides, but every sentence carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

A zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema: the description covers what the data represents and when to reach for it. It omits return shape (e.g., an array of error entries) and scoping (current page only), which would fully close the loop.

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% and both parameters (mode, sessionId) are documented in the schema itself, so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (read uncaught JS exceptions from the page) and immediately names the sibling it must not be confused with, browser_console_logs. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('whenever a page seems stuck or a feature silently does nothing') and names the alternative tool plus the precise distinction that selects it (console calls vs. real thrown errors). No when-not case is stated, but the alternative routing is unambiguous.

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