Read captured IPC call log

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

Describes the draining behavior and the content of returned entries, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether the buffer is cleared) and performance implications. With no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.

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?

Two concise sentences; the first covers action and prerequisite, the second describes entry structure. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

Covers prerequisite and entry fields, but lacks information on result ordering (e.g., newest first), default behavior when limit/since omitted, and pagination. Given five parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It provides context about the return value but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 drains pending IPC events and returns matching entries, specifying the verb and resource precisely. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_console_messages and get_main_logs by focusing on IPC logs and requiring enable_ipc_logging.

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?

Explicitly mentions a prerequisite ('Requires enable_ipc_logging to have been called first'), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not discuss alternatives or when not to use it.

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