get_debug_output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the source is a running Godot project and that errors_only and tail filters are supported. However, it does not disclose failure behaviors (e.g., if no project is running) or the exact structure of returned output. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries useful information (purpose, filters, alternative). No wasted words.

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 no required parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, source, filters, and points to an alternative for structured errors. It does not discuss behavior when no project is running, but for this complexity level, it is nearly complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for both tail and errorsOnly, clearly explaining their meaning. The tool description mentions these filters but does not add information beyond the schema. Thus the description adds no extra parameter value; baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves console output (stdout/stderr) from a running Godot project. It specifies the resource and scope, and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_runtime_errors by pointing to that tool for structured 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?

It explicitly directs users to get_runtime_errors for structured errors with stack traces, establishing a clear when-not and alternative. The mention of 'running Godot project' implies the prerequisite context. This is explicit enough for a simple read tool.

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