console_mark

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, the description adds useful behavioral context by noting 'Pure Python — no TCP call' and explaining that the return value encodes the current timestamp. This goes beyond the annotations and provides meaningful insight into side effects and performance characteristics.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three short sentences covering purpose, return value, usage, and implementation detail. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and how to use it with a sibling tool. It could be more complete by explaining the label parameter, but for a tool of this complexity, the description is sufficiently 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?

The schema has one optional parameter, 'label', with a default of empty string, but the description does not explain what the label is for. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it omits any parameter guidance, leaving the user to guess the label's purpose or accept the default.

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's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('console watermark'). It also distinguishes itself by explaining that the returned mark_id encodes the current timestamp, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the user when to use this tool: to create a mark that can be passed to get_console_since() for retrieving logs after a point. It also mentions the Pure Python implementation (no TCP call), which implies it is lightweight and safe to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative approaches.

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