Get run output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: errors/warnings are parsed, deduplicated, shown with file:line, and repeated per-frame errors are collapsed. This goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention non-destructive reading (clear defaults to false) or return format, which keeps it from a 5.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Read console output'), and every phrase adds value. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a good high-level overview but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain return structure, pagination (limit/offset), or the buffer-clearing effect of 'clear'. The parsing/dedup details help, but an agent would still need to rely on the schema for several misunderstandings.

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 60% (clear, project, severity have descriptions; limit and offset do not). The description adds context about errors/warnings parsing that relates to the severity parameter, but does not compensate for the undocumented limit/offset parameters. It is adequate but not exemplary.

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 ('Read'), clearly identifies the resource ('console output'), and scopes it to the 'running (or last) session'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_project and stop_project by describing output processing (parsed, deduplicated, file:line). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 phrase 'from the running (or last) session' implies usage after launching a project, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like run_project hint at the workflow, but no alternatives are named or excluded. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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