pmux_browser_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ring buffer limit of 500, incremental polling via 'since', filtering by 'level', and platform restriction (Electron-only with error codes 503/409). This provides solid behavioral context beyond basic function.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-load the purpose and key behaviors. Every word adds value, including the ring buffer note and platform restriction. No verbose or redundant content.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: return format, capacity, parameter explanations, and platform limitation. Could mention ordering or empty result behavior, but overall adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining 'since' as an incremental polling cursor and 'level' as filter, plus ring buffer context. This goes beyond the schema's basic type info.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves browser console entries for a tab, specifying the return format and ring buffer capacity. While distinct from sibling tools like pmux_browser_network, it does not explicitly differentiate usage, preventing a top score.

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?

Implied usage for console log retrieval and mentions platform restriction (Electron-only), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pmux_browser_network or pmux_browser_eval. No exclusions provided.

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