Get Console Since

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

The annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, so no mutation disclosure is needed. The description adds useful behavioral details: it filters by level and keyword, count_only returns a count as a string, and count has a default of 500. This goes beyond simple read-only and provides meaningful operational context.

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 a compact bullet list, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every line adds value and there is no filler.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers all parameters and the count_only return type. It doesn't describe the full return structure for normal calls, but given the sibling context and simple nature, this is sufficient. Could be slightly more explicit about return format, but overall 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. Each parameter is explicitly explained: mark_id accepts a mark string or timestamp, level filters by allowed values, keyword is case-insensitive, count_only returns a string, and count has a default. This exceeds schema information.

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 opens with a clear verb phrase 'Console entries after the watermark' which specifies exactly what the tool retrieves. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_console and console_mark by referencing the mark-based scoping.

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 explains when to use this tool: to retrieve console entries after a watermark created by console_mark() or a timestamp. It implies an alternative to get_console but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer alternatives, so it provides clear context without explicit alternative guidance.

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