get_console_output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns 'raw console output text', which is useful for understanding output format. No further behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements are mentioned, but the return format disclosure is valuable.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, and return value. Front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.

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?

Given annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters fully, and there is no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the return type ('raw console output text') which compensates for the missing output schema. It could mention that the provider parameter is optional, but that is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly (region, account, provider, instance_id). The description mentions 'Requires account, region, and instance ID', which aligns with required parameters but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Get the console output (boot log) for a specific compute instance'), clearly differentiating from siblings like get_instance or get_execution. The parenthetical 'boot log' adds precision about what console output means here.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'debug instance startup failures or inspect early boot messages.' This gives clear context. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, keeping it below a 5.

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