tail_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool searches the case directory and run/ subdirectory for log files, and returns the last lines of the most recently modified matching log. This discloses key behavioral traits like file search and timestamp-based selection.

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 concise at four sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple function and the presence of an output schema, the description covers search behavior, component options, and line count. It could mention error handling or file existence, but is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: case_dir (implied as directory to search), component (list of valid values), and lines (number of lines). This adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 returns the most recent lines from a CESM run log, with a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'CESM run log'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on building, submitting, or querying cases, not viewing logs.

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 usage for viewing recent log output, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since no sibling tool provides log tailing, the context is clear.

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