Read recent console output

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the client buffer starts at first server connection, server output is a filtered tail of the last 512 KB, and afterSeq paging only works on the client. These data-freshness and paging constraints are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core guarantee ('without running anything') before splitting into the two target cases. Dense but every clause (buffer origin, 512 KB tail, filtering, afterSeq support) carries behavioral weight rather than padding.

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 an output schema present, return formatting needn't be explained, and all six params are schema-documented. The description covers the hard part — per-target data sources and paging limits — though it omits the client-vs-server routing relative to the read_client_log sibling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the 'client only' note on afterSeq. The description reinforces which parameters apply to which target but adds little syntax or format detail beyond that; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return recent console lines') and then breaks the behavior down per 'client' and 'server' target, so an agent can tell exactly which backing buffer is read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling read_client_log, which plausibly overlaps, leaving target selection between the two to inference.

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?

'without running anything' implicitly contrasts this with the command-execution siblings (server_command, client_command), and the requirement of rcon_password for 'server' appears in the schema. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as read_client_log or wait_for_console.

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