console-get-logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states 'retrieves' without disclosing any side effects, destructive actions, or performance implications. This is insufficient for a data retrieval tool.

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 at two sentences, with no superfluous information. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded with the core action.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return format or potential limitations. It mentions 'logs' but does not describe the structure or volume. However, the schema covers parameters adequately, making it minimally viable.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per the guidelines, this warrants a baseline score of 3.

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 Unity Editor logs and indicates its utility for debugging and monitoring. It effectively communicates the core function, though it could be more specific about the source (e.g., 'from the Console window').

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 mentions usefulness for debugging and monitoring, implying when to use, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Given no sibling log tools exist, the lack of exclusion is acceptable, but the description could be more directive.

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