Read the OSC input and output configuration

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: it declares the operation read-only, discloses the non-obvious fact that the console listens on every interface regardless of Interface/PreferredIP settings, and states a hard prerequisite ('Needs bridge 0.33.0'). It omits anything about auth or response size, which keeps it below 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?

It is front-loaded with the key signal ('Read-only') and nothing is truly filler, but the body is a single long comma-spliced run-on that mixes field inventory, interpretive meaning, and a version requirement without structural separation. The 'what it means' clause and the sender-reachability caveat are valuable but hard to parse on first read.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description must explain return contents and it does so field by field, plus it explains the practical consequence of those values for command acceptance and output routing. It is complete enough to call the tool, with only minor gaps such as the exact response shape.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly adds nothing gratuitous about inputs and instead spends its space on return contents.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Read-only' read of 'the console's OSC input and output') and then enumerates the exact fields returned: EnableInput/EnableOutput, Interface/PreferredIP, OSC lines with port, prefix, Receive/Send flags and destination IP, plus network interfaces. That is far more specific than the sibling configuration tools and lets an agent tell it apart from gma3_configure_osc without opening either schema.

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?

It states 'Read-only' and explains what the data means for OSC routing, which implies this is the inspection counterpart to gma3_configure_osc. However, it never explicitly says 'use configure_osc to change these values' or names a when-not condition, so the agent must infer the read-vs-write split from sibling names alone.

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