postfix_log_trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that output is the full line-by-line flow across pipeline stages (smtpd, cleanup, qmgr, smtp/local, bounce notifications) ending in a final status. It doesn't cover ambiguity handling when an email matches multiple queue IDs, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the verb and target come first, then the input forms, then the output scope. The parenthetical listing the pipeline stages earns its place by telling the agent which log components are traversed, and there is no 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, inputs and output scope for a read-only tool; only the multi-match / result-grouping behavior for email queries is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, query and since are all documented in the schema. The description only restates that query accepts a queue ID or email address, adding no format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a precise verb ('Follow') and resource ('one message through the log') plus the inputs that select it (queue ID or email address). The scope statement 'one message ... every line for each matching queue ID' clearly separates it from aggregate siblings like postfix_log_stats, postfix_log_trend and postfix_queue_summary without having to open any schema.

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 the usage context (single-message forensics rather than aggregate statistics) and tells the agent what the query accepts, but never states when to prefer this over the log_stats/log_trend siblings or when-not to use it. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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