wb_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'Read/tail', but never states whether 'tail' follows/streams and blocks, whether it returns a snapshot, how missing or empty log files are handled, or what permissions/paths are expected — all critical for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target are the first things read. It is arguably too terse rather than wasteful, but structurally it is clean.

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?

Three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage — the description would need to explain return shape and parameter behavior to be adequate. It leaves the agent guessing about `tail` semantics, `issues_only` filtering, and what a log read actually returns.

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 all three parameters need compensating detail. The description only partially explains `game_root` (game root or entSpawner directory) and merely echoes `tail` as a verb without defining its units or semantics (last N lines? bytes? default?). `issues_only` is completely undocumented.

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 pair ('Read/tail') and a specific resource (World Builder, CET and related Cyberpunk mod logs), plus where they are located (game root or entSpawner directory). No sibling tool covers logs, so there is nothing to disambiguate against, but the scope is concrete enough for an agent to recognize the tool's job.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of debugging/troubleshooting as the motivating scenario, and no statement of when not to use it. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a diagnostic log-reading tool.

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