browser_console_messages

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states that messages are 'collected' but does not explain what that means (e.g., from the current page, session, or history), whether the tool clears the collection, or whether it is a read-only operation. The return format is also 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 with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be viewed as slightly under-specified for a two-parameter tool, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the existence of two parameters, the description is too sparse. It misses critical context: what 'collected' means, the structure of the returned messages, and the effects of the level/filename parameters. This is a simple tool, but the description still leaves ambiguity.

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 description does not mention either parameter (level, filename). Although the schema provides enum values and defaults for both, the description adds zero explanatory value about how they filter or affect the returned console messages. With 0% schema coverage in the description, the tool description fails to compensate.

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 'Return collected console messages' clearly uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('collected console messages'), making the tool's primary function obvious. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser_network_requests, the name and phrasing make the domain 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. It neither mentions usage contexts nor excludes other tools, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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