get_log

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It says it reads the tail of a log and captures errors, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or whether the log is cleared. The 'tail' implies recent entries, but lacks details on behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: first states action, second explains content, third gives usage context. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the output schema covers return format, the description lacks explanation of the 'lines' parameter and error cases. For a simple tool, it is partially complete but missing essential parameter semantics.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'lines' parameter at all. The agent has no way to learn that this parameter controls the number of log lines read, which is a critical gap.

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 states the verb 'Read' and specific resource 'tail of Sonic Pi's server errors log', and clarifies it captures runtime errors and warnings. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like run_code by stating its diagnostic 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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this after run_code to check for errors.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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