Read console logs

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the server cap of 200 entries and that limit further trims, which is helpful. However, it omits details like expected response format, error handling for missing logs, or whether the tool is read-only. This leaves gaps for an agent.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the parameter behavior and server constraint. No unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 simple nature (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks information about return format (e.g., array of strings) and edge cases (e.g., no logs yet, server unavailable). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by noting the debug server caps results at 200 and that limit works on top of that cap. This clarifies the boundary condition, adding value over the bare 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 it reads the last console.log/warn/error calls from the app window since it loaded. The verb 'read' and the resource 'console logs' are explicit. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools (state machine operations) by domain.

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 usage for retrieving console output, which is distinct from sibling tools focused on state transitions. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names. However, the domain difference is sufficient for an agent to differentiate.

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