get_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses newest-last ordering, the since_last incremental behavior, truncation of long output with a count of dropped lines, and the launch_app precondition. This is a meaningful behavioral profile beyond the bare schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and all behavioral constraints expressed in three tight sentences. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 medium-complexity tool with three parameters)Skip no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter-level details. Minor gaps remain around exact return formatting and error behavior for non-launch_app apps, but nothing critical prevents correct invocation.

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, and it does: lines is explained as how many trailing lines to return, since_last=True is explained as returning everything since the previous such call, and app_id is tied to apps started via launch_app. Exact parameter value formats are not specified, but the core semantics are clear.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving an app's console output, naming source types (print, message, cat, logging) and ordering (newest last). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_outputs or get_errors, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 states when the tool applies ('Only for apps started with launch_app') and explains the two retrieval modes (last N lines vs since_last). It does not explicitly guide the agent toward this tool over read_outputs or get_errors, leaving the choice to inference from 'console output.'

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