watch_console

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral details such as 'Block until' for wait actions, timeouts, and internal cursor management. This fully informs the agent about blocking behavior and statefulness.

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 concise, starts with the main purpose, and uses a bullet list for actions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple actions), the description provides a good overview of capabilities and behaviors. However, it lacks details about return value format (e.g., structure of log entries) and error handling, leaving some gaps despite no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description briefly restates actions but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it monitors the Unity console for new logs with filtering and waiting capabilities, listing specific actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_console_logs by focusing on waiting and iterative log checking.

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 explicitly mentions 'Perfect for recursive iteration' and lists use cases like waiting for messages, errors, or compilation results. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare to alternative tools.

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