console_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Retrieve' suggests a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about non-destructiveness, message persistence after retrieval, or error conditions. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist), but leaves some behavioral traits implied rather than explicit.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no redundant information. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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 is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema (exists but not shown). The description covers the key behavioral aspect (chronological order with limit) and is complete for the tool's scope. Minor gaps like error handling or empty state behavior are not critical given the output schema likely documents return values.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining the 'limit' parameter's role in controlling how many messages are returned and the ordering (oldest first within last limit, newest last). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'captured console messages', specifying chronological ordering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like console_clear (delete) and console_start (start capture), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is for reading messages, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like console_clear or console_start. The chronological ordering detail is useful but insufficient for full usage guidelines.

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