log_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the permission requirement (log.read) and the basic read behavior, but does not disclose anything about output format, limits, error handling, or side effects. This is minimal for a tool that could have non-obvious behaviors.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters, the description covers the basic function and permission but lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not describe the return value (though no output schema exists). It is minimally viable but leaves room for clarification on when to choose this over file_read or log_search.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (path and lines) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so it is at the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.

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 tool reads the last N lines of a log file, using a specific verb (read), resource (log file), and scope (last N lines). This distinguishes it from similar tools like log_search or file_read.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like log_search, file_read, or container_logs. The only additional context is the permission requirement, which is a prerequisite but not usage guidance.

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