read_run_log

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

With no annotations, the description discloses search behavior (looks in case_dir and case_dir/run/) and returns the most recent match. However, it does not mention what happens if no log is found or how the 'lines' parameter controls the output.

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 uses three concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding search behavior without fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's core function and search logic. Minor gaps like the 'lines' parameter usage are present but do not severely hinder completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description only explains the 'component' parameter values, leaving 'case_dir' and 'lines' (which does have a default) without additional meaning beyond their names.

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 it returns recent lines from a CESM or MOM6 run log, specifies supported components ('cesm', 'ocn', etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_diag_table or classify_error.

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 reading run logs but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it contrast with siblings like read_diag_table.

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