Console Mark

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by specifying the return behavior (mark_id encoding timestamp), the pure Python implementation (no TCP call), and the intended usage pattern. This is useful context not derivable from annotations alone.

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: three short sentences, each carrying essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return value, usage, and implementation detail. No filler or redundant wording.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and readOnly annotation, the description covers most key points: what it does, what it returns, and how to use it. However, the lack of any explanation of the 'label' parameter and the absence of any mention of edge cases or error conditions leaves a small gap, preventing a perfect score.

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 only parameter 'label' has no description in the schema (coverage 0%) and the tool description completely omits it. The description must compensate for low schema coverage, but it fails to explain what 'label' is for (e.g., an optional identifier for the mark). This leaves a notable gap for a parameter that is present, even if optional.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('console watermark'), and clearly explains the function: returning a mark_id encoding the current timestamp. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_console_since by describing the relationship (pass the mark to retrieve logs after that point).

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?

Provides explicit usage context: create a mark, pass it to get_console_since() to filter logs. Also notes 'Pure Python — no TCP call', which implies it is a lightweight option compared to network-based tools. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and even hints at an alternative.

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