get_console

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: keyword is case-insensitive, count_only returns N matches as a string, and since refers to the last N seconds. It does not describe pagination (count/first) or return format, but it provides useful non-obvious behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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, consisting of three short sentences that all add value. It front-loads purpose and alternatives, then efficiently defines parameters. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description only partially covers the tool. It explains the core purpose and some filters but omits pagination behavior (count/first), level filtering, and return structure. The exclusion of get_compile_errors helps, but the overall picture is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains keyword, count_only, and since, but does not cover count, first, or level. The descriptions are helpful but incomplete, leaving half the parameters undocumented semantically.

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 'Recent console logs' clearly conveys the tool's purpose as retrieving recent console output, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_compile_errors for C# compile errors. Although it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, the intent is unambiguous and the sibling differentiation is strong.

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 states when to avoid this tool: 'For C# compile errors use get_compile_errors instead.' It also provides usage context for the 'since' and 'keyword' parameters, telling the user how to filter logs by time and substring. This meets the criterion for explicit when/when-not guidance.

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