console_read

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It adds context about idle detection and timeout limits, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements (username/password parameters), the meaning of 'idle', or whether output is consumed non-destructively. This is a partial 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a useful pairing note. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has four parameters and an output schema, but the description is brief. It covers the core behavior but omits authentication context, error handling, and a clear definition of 'idle'. Given the output schema exists, return values are not fully explained though partially inferred. The description is minimally sufficient but lacks completeness for a production tool.

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 explicitly explains 'timeout' (in seconds) via backticks, but does not explain node_id, username, or password. Node_id is self-explanatory, but the auth parameters are not addressed, leaving a significant gap given low coverage.

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 ('Read pending output from a node's console until it goes idle') with a specific resource (node's console). It is distinguishable from siblings like console_send (sends) and console_close (closes). The pairing instruction further reinforces its unique role.

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 clear usage context by advising to pair with console_send for interactive sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools for non-interactive output retrieval, leaving some ambiguity.

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