output_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get' strongly implies a non-destructive read and 'captured' explains provenance, but the description does not explicitly state that no Studio state is modified or cleared, nor whether it targets the active Studio instance.

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?

One short, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no redundant schema information and no filler, so every phrase 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 description plus the fully documented optional parameters is adequate for basic invocation of this simple read tool. However, with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, the agent is left to infer return format and when to prefer output_get_errors, so the definition is not fully complete.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only light semantic context by mapping 'prints, warnings, errors' to the filterType categories, but it does not add meaningful detail about limit or query behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description has a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent output logs captured from Roblox Studio' and lists the log categories. It is clearly broader than the sibling output_get_errors, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus output_get_errors or output_clear. The description does not state exclusions, alternatives, or conditions for choosing a sibling, leaving the agent to infer placement from names alone.

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