get-console-logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It establishes a read-oriented retrieval action and specifies the source as the development server, but it does not describe whether logs are paginated, what 'limit' does exactly, what a checkpoint is, or how the returned logs are structured.

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 with no wasted words. It names the action, the target, and the environment in a compact way.

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?

For a simple tool with two optional, fully described parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any statement about expected return shape, prerequisites such as a running development server, or when not to use this tool, and there is no output schema or annotations to cover those gaps.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The description does not explain how limit and checkpoint interact, but the schema descriptions are sufficiently detailed to set a baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('console logs'), and 'from the development server' gives scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get-hmr-events or get-context-stats, but the resource name is distinct enough to make the tool's purpose identifiable.

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 prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or sibling tools, so an agent is left to infer context purely from the name and the short description.

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