perch_console

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the content of the read but says nothing about side effects (the 'clear' option mutates state), volume/truncation limits, or whether output is bounded across frames, which matters because errors are captured 'from every frame'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then enumerates the returned sources. No filler or repetition, though it slightly overpacks the return-value detail into the purpose statement.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what comes back. It is still incomplete on the mutation risk of 'clear' and on the relationship to perch_errors, which an agent needs to pick the right tool.

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% and the single 'clear' parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond that and never references the clear-after-read behavior.

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 clear verb+resource ('Read the console') and specifies the exact data sources it returns (the #console-output panel plus buffered console and runtime errors). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'perch_errors', which plausibly covers the same runtime-error surface.

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 says what the tool reads but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as perch_errors or perch_read. An agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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