sym_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only tail operation on the log, which implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose details like default line count, log size limits, or behavior when the log is empty.

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 very short, front-loaded, and free of filler. It is concise without being a pure tautology, though the brevity contributes to missing detail elsewhere.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is barely adequate: it implies the return value is log lines and the operation is safe. But it leaves parameter semantics and usage context to inference, so it is not fully complete.

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 only parameter, 'n', is a bare number in the schema with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description says 'last lines' but never explicitly states that 'n' controls the number of lines, nor does it mention any default or bounds. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource ('extension log') and the scope ('last lines'), with 'diagnostics' clarifying intent. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'tail'.

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 parenthetical 'diagnostics' implies this tool is for debugging or inspecting extension behavior, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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