console

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

It discloses the crucial destructive trait absent from annotations: 'Each call takes the log entries away, so a call returns only what is new since the call before it.' This is a consumption side effect that matters operationally and is consistent with idempotentHint=false. The readOnlyHint=true annotation sits alongside, and the description clarifies the non-persistent read nature rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then exclusions, then behavior. Every sentence earns its place except the trailing 'Returns JSON.', which is redundant given an output schema exists. Efficient overall with only that minor waste.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure. It fully covers purpose, routing to siblings, and the log-consumption behavior, so an agent has everything required to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (limit, source, severity, root_path, node_limit, node_errors) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds the relationship hint that root_path is 'the network that node_errors walks' but otherwise introduces no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (Read) and two concrete resources (the Houdini log and node errors). It is immediately distinguishable from cook (which returns live cook errors) and scene_overview (which lists erroring nodes), both named later in the description.

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?

It states when to use it ('when something did not do what you expected', with the empty-geometry cook-error example), when NOT to use it ('Do not use it for the errors of nodes that you cook now'), and names the two alternatives (cook, scene_overview mode "errors") with the condition selecting each.

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