console_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds significant behavioral context: it consumes the drained bytes, resets the truncated flag, and handles errored readers by surfacing buffered data alongside failure. These details go beyond annotations and help the agent predict side effects.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value—the first states the operation and parameter, the second covers side effects and error behavior. No redundant or filler text.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior, parameter meaning, and error conditions. It does not explicitly address when to use it relative to siblings, but that gap is partially covered by the purpose clarity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read/drain operation.

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 must compensate. It explains max_bytes ('up to max_bytes (default all)') and clarifies that null means all. Session is indirectly described via 'unknown session is a tool error', implying it must reference an existing session. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though session semantics could be more explicit.

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 tool's function: 'Drain up to ``max_bytes`` (default all) buffered console bytes.' This uses a specific verb (drain) and resource (buffered console bytes), distinctly distinguishing it from sibling tools like console_send (which writes) and console_open/close (which manage the session).

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 implies usage (reading console output) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like console_send or console_close. It mentions error cases ('unknown session is a tool error') which provides some context, but no direct 'use this when...' guidance or exclusion of other tools.

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