Program output

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

Annotations already signal read-only/non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context: output is captured across stdout, stderr, and console API entries, and reads are cursor-based for incremental retrieval. No contradiction with annotations and no hidden side effects suggested.

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 short sentences convey the tool's purpose and the key incremental-read mechanism. Every clause is informative; no filler or repeated schema content.

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 read-only tool with 2 optional parameters, fully documented schema, and no nested objects, the description plus schema provides all needed information. It defines what is read, how to paginate via cursor, and the sessionId condition is covered by the schema. An output schema is absent, but the return contents ('entries') and cursor semantics are sufficiently clear.

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%: both cursor and sessionId already explain their meaning. The description adds only that the cursor comes from a previous response, which modestly supplements the schema without needing to repeat parameter details.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('captured stdout, stderr, and Runtime.consoleAPICalled entries'), and the unique role of the tool among the sibling debug_* tools. It is not a tautology and tells an agent exactly what output stream it retrieves.

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 gives clear context: it is the tool for reading captured program output. It also states how to do incremental reads by passing the cursor from the previous response. It does not name an alternative or explicitly say when not to use it, but the resource definition makes the use case unambiguous alongside siblings.

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