atas_bridge_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only, diagnostic log view through the word 'logs' and 'recent', but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention log ordering, size, or recency limits.

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 with no wasted words. The resource is front-loaded, and the troubleshooting scenarios are stated efficiently. Every part of the description contributes to selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple, zero-parameter log fetch, especially since the output schema is available. It could be slightly more complete by defining the recency window or log format, but the core selection and invocation context is present.

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 schema has zero parameters and full coverage, so there are no parameters to explain. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by specifying the source (ATAS bridge) and the diagnostic use cases.

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 identifies the exact resource: recent diagnostic logs from the ATAS bridge. It also conveys the tool's role as a log-reading diagnostic, which distinguishes it from all sibling quote, order, and position tools, even though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: troubleshooting strategy activation, tick processing, or order issues. It does not name alternatives because no sibling log tool exists, so the absence of exclusion criteria is acceptable.

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