ver_logs

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: filtro is applied as grep -iE, and the time format differs per tipo (docker wants "1h" while others accept "1 hour ago" or a timestamp). It does not say what happens with an invalid nombre or whether lineas truncates output, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by compact per-parameter notes with no filler. The only structural weakness is that the tipo notes and the target-name examples are merged into one line, which is where the ambiguity comes from.

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 6-parameter tool with a required "nombre"/"servidor" pair and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unsaid. The output schema excuses it from explaining return values and annotations cover safety, but the missing meaning of nombre, lineas and servidor is a genuine gap.

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 carries the whole burden, and it only documents tipo, filtro and desde. Worse, it attaches the unit/container/path examples (nginx, /var/log/nginx/error.log) to "tipo", which is an enum — it never explains that those values belong in the required "nombre" parameter. "lineas" and "servidor" are left entirely undefined, inviting a malformed call.

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?

"Últimas líneas de logs" states a concrete verb+resource (tail recent log lines) and the tipo enumeration makes the scope of log sources explicit. It is distinguishable from siblings like leer_archivo or estado_sistema, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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 gives useful per-tipo guidance and correctly restricts "desde" to servicio/sistema/docker (implying archivo ignores it), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over leer_archivo or estado_sistema, nor does it state preconditions such as the server needing to be reachable.

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