read_console

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

Annotations lack readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads captured errors but does not disclose whether reading is destructive (e.g., clears the buffer) or if there are side effects. The mention that 'GMod does not expose the console buffer' adds context but does not clarify behavioral traits like idempotency or performance impact.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose directly ('CLIENT Lua errors captured since load'). The second adds valuable context about a GMod limitation. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the input (none needed) and high-level output (captured errors). However, it does not describe the format of the errors, whether the data is truncated, or if reading clears the buffer. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. It provides context about what the tool reads (client Lua errors) beyond the empty schema, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 tool reads 'CLIENT Lua errors captured since load' and notes a limitation about the console buffer. It specifies the resource (client Lua errors) and the action (read), though it could be more precise about what 'captured since load' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like read_logs by focusing on client-side Lua errors.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings like read_logs or read_entities. The agent is left without context for appropriate invocation.

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