get_node_console_log

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the default console_id and the optional line limit, but does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the node is missing, or any preconditions. The term 'captured' hints at stored output, but this is insufficient disclosure.

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 concise sentence with an informative parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and contains no unnecessary verbiage.

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 lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and the non-obvious parameters, but omits usage context, exclusions, and preconditions. The output schema may define return values, but the description alone is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description partially compensates by explaining console_id (main console on most platforms) and lines (limit to last N lines). It does not explain lab_id or node_id, though these are relatively self-explanatory from their names. The description adds some semantics but misses the remaining parameters.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('console output captured for a node'), and it adds a clarifying detail about console_id 0 being the main console. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_config, which retrieves configuration, not console logs.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer other tools. The implied usage is limited to the verb 'Get', but no when-to-use context is given.

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