tv_console

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral details: it buffers since launch, includes uncaught exceptions and failed network requests, and reports dropped ring buffer entries. It does not mention return structure or pagination, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond trivial details.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose, then adds filtering capability and output behavior. Every clause contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 explains what data is buffered and mentions the dropped entry count, which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not fully describe the return format, but the tool is relatively simple and the schema covers parameters, so the description is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already describes each parameter (limit, device, filter, levels). The description only summarizes 'filter by substring and/or level' without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool retrieves buffered console output, uncaught exceptions, and failed network requests. It specifies the resource (console/network logs) and the action (buffered since launch, filterable). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tv_screenshot or tv_state.

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 gives clear context: logs are buffered since launch, so the tool is for historical console data. It mentions filtering by substring and level, which tells the agent how to narrow results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives.

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