browser_console

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects of the 'clear' parameter (e.g., clearing the buffer) or describe the return format (e.g., an array of log entries). The description only states what it fetches, not what the tool does beyond that.

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 front-loads the core action. There is no fluff or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits critical context: it does not specify the return type (e.g., an array of log strings) or behavior when there are no logs. It also does not explain the 'clear' parameter's effect in the description, leaving the agent to infer it solely from the schema. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 schema provides a full description of the 'clear' parameter (whether to clear the log buffer after retrieval), covering 100% of the parameter meaning. The tool description does not add any extra semantic value beyond what the schema already explains, so the 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 verb (获取/get) and resource (页面控制台日志/page console logs), and specifies the log types (console.log/error/warn). It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_getTitle or browser_getHTML by focusing on console output, 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to prefer browser_console over browser_evaluate (which could also access console via JS) or mention any prerequisites. The intended usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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