console_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does well: it states the ordering (most-recent-last), filtering capability, default limit, and explicitly guarantees no silent truncation. It does not mention authentication, return format, or behavior for invalid regex/pattern input, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that packs the primary action, resource, ordering, filters, default limit, and truncation guarantee without wasted words. Every clause adds useful information.

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 description covers the main list semantics but leaves the optional sessionId parameter ambiguous—an agent cannot tell whether omitting it defaults to the current session or fails. With no output schema, there is also no description of the returned entry shape, and the relationship to console_errors is not addressed.

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 75%, so the schema already documents level, limit, and pattern. The description reinforces these but adds little new parameter-level meaning; sessionId has no schema description and the description only refers to 'a session' without explaining the optional/default behavior. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action (List), the resource (captured console entries), the scope (for a session), and key behavior such as ordering and filtering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling console_errors, though the level/pattern filtering implies a broader scope.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like console_errors, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether a sessionId is required or what happens when it is omitted. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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