ro_console

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read recent console output' without noting that it is non-mutating, what the output format is, or any performance limitations. It adds minimal value beyond the basic read operation, leaving the agent to assume safety and response characteristics.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and then adds a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential action but does not describe the output format, potential size limits, or any edge cases. It is adequate for basic usage but not thorough—an agent knows what it does, but not what the response will look like.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'lines' with a description ('How many trailing lines'), default, min, and max. The tool description adds no extra meaning about this parameter. With 100% schema coverage, 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 and resource: 'Read recent OpenKore console output.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ro_walk or ro_attack, which are actions, and ro_state, which reports state. The added usage context ('when something did not behave as expected') further clarifies the intended purpose.

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 a clear usage scenario, telling the agent to use this when something did not behave as expected. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer when to choose this over siblings. Lacking an explicit 'when not to use' prevents a perfect score.

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