Tail server console

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully describes the operational sequence: opening a WebSocket, replaying recent output, collecting live output for a few seconds, and returning text. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions or keys are needed, and any error or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated compactly afterward.

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 description covers the capture mechanics and return type broadly, but with no output schema and seven parameters, it does not explain the shape or limits of the returned text. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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 86%, well above the 80% baseline, so the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the behavioral context, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource action: open the console WebSocket, replay recent output, collect live output, and return text. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as server_activity or server_command.

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 provides one useful prerequisite, 'The server should be running,' but gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like server_activity, server_command, or files_read for logs. Usage is implied by the console-tail purpose rather than explicitly guided.

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