console_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It only states what the tool does and does not disclose side effects (e.g., the 'clear' parameter can delete logs), return format, or that the schema includes 'content-script' as a context even though the description's parenthetical list omits it. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without any redundant information or unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured and immediately front-loads the key action and scope.

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 the tool has five parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention return format, ordering, or the effect of the 'clear' parameter, and it omits 'content-script' from the context list. While the schema covers parameters, the description lacks behavioral context needed for full completeness, making it only minimally viable.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds no extra parameter semantic detail, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('console logs') and clearly defines the scope ('all extension contexts') with examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_requests and extension_errors, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 through the phrase 'all extension contexts', suggesting it's the go-to for comprehensive console log retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., extension_errors) or provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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