Get Console Logs

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description still adds real behavior: entries are buffered rather than live, returned most-recent-first, and default to warning+error. The note that json includes stackTrace is a genuinely useful disclosure not present in the structured data.

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?

Five terse fragments with zero filler, and the core action (reading buffered entries, ordering, filtering) is front-loaded before the usage and format notes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics, and it does so partially by noting stackTrace inclusion under json and warning+error defaults. It does not describe the markdown entry shape or how truncation interacts with max_logs, leaving minor gaps.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds value by explaining what the json response_format actually yields (stackTrace included) and restating the default type set, going slightly beyond the enum's 'machine-readable' phrasing.

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: 'Read buffered Unity console entries, most recent first' plus the ability to 'Filter by type.' This clearly separates it from write-side siblings like unity_clear_console, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Provides concrete usage triggers: 'summarize warnings/errors', 'check console after my change', and 'verifying a fix.' That is clear when-to-use context, but there are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternative tools (e.g., unity_get_code_result for execution output).

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