console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation and specifies JSON output plus valid views, but it does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, or what each view returns, leaving notable gaps.

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 filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second enumerates valid views; every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool has one optional parameter and a read-only operation, so the description covers the main aspects: purpose, output format, and valid parameter values. It could be more explicit about return fields or authentication, but for this complexity level it 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?

The schema property 'view' has no description or enum, so the description fully compensates by listing all valid values: home, history, tools, keys, stats. This gives the agent the necessary syntax and allowed inputs, exceeding the schema's minimal information.

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 reads the human-readable management console as JSON and lists the included data types (route history, connected tools, catalog, stats). The verb 'Read' distinguishes it from mutating tools, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 context for reading the console but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'session_info' or 'health'. The list of views implies usage scenarios, but there are no direct exclusions or comparisons to guide tool selection.

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