tail_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or any potential side effects. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and typical use case but lacks details about error scenarios, return format, or limitations on file size.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description adds little beyond restating 'last lines or bytes'. It does not provide additional context like file size limits or error handling, keeping it at baseline.

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 it returns the last lines or bytes from a file, and mentions its utility for background command logs. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_files or read_cell_outputs, though it could be more explicit about the 'through Colab Terminal' aspect.

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 for checking logs of background commands, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given sibling tools like download_file or read_cell_outputs, some guidance is implicit but not formal.

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