game_get_logs

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

The description discloses the key polling behavior (returns only new output since the last call) which is critical for correct usage. Annotations are minimal, so the description carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's function and the incremental nature of the output, which is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose, which is essential since the empty schema provides no functionality clues.

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 new print output from the running game since the last call, using a specific verb 'get' and resource 'print output'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'game_get_errors' and 'godot_game_logs' by focusing on incremental print output.

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 implies this tool is for polling print output, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'game_get_errors' for errors or 'godot_game_logs' for broader logs. No exclusions or context are provided.

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