Read server logs

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 states 'Read-only tail' (non-destructive) and lists sources, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The absence of annotations places a higher burden, but the description covers the essential 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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. The purpose is stated first, followed by a critical parameter dependency. Efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only log tail tool, the description covers source types and parameter constraints. The only minor gap is the lack of output format description (e.g., returns raw log lines), but this is not critical given the context.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that `name` is conditionally required (for pm2 and journal), which is not enforced by the schema. This additional constraint helps the agent correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read-only tail of common logs' and lists specific log types (nginx, PM2, systemd), distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover hosts, sites, security, health, and SSL status.

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?

Provides clear context for using the tool to read logs, and specifies that `name` is required for pm2 and journal sources. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but given sibling tools are unrelated, this is sufficient.

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