get_output_log_lines

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is met, but the description still adds real value: it confirms NON-DESTRUCTIVE cursor semantics, explains the sequence_id idiom, and notes that Serialize() captures every category/verbosity regardless of PIE state. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 key facts (what it reads, non-destructive cursor, filters, return shape) are front-loaded and every clause carries information. It is denser than ideal with nested parentheticals, but nothing is clearly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape inline ({lines:[{sequence_id, ts, level, category, message}], count, held_total, last_sequence_id}) and explains the cursor semantics, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter fully. The description restates that all three filters are supported and names them, which marginally maps to the schema, but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what is already there. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (read the per-editor-session log buffer attached to GLog) and immediately scopes it as general editor output, not PIE-only. The Serialize() clause makes the data source unambiguous, distinguishing it from message-log or audit siblings.

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 clear use context (usable for PIE Functional Test / wait_for_pie_completion orchestration) and points to the cursor idiom shared with poll_gameplay_messages. However it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings like get_message_log_entries or open_message_log, nor any when-not condition.

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