Read the CarMaker session log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that it reads the *newest* log, implying older logs are not accessible here — but says nothing about truncation behavior, log rotation, or what happens when no log exists. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the scoping fact (last lines, newest log) is front-loaded before the usage trigger. Every clause earns its place.

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 and full schema coverage, the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. It supplies purpose and trigger, which is close to sufficient for this simple two-param read tool; only the absence of failure-mode context (no log found, log size limits) keeps it from being 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the enum semantics for 'level' and the 'lines from the end' meaning are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail 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 specific resource and scope — 'last lines of the newest CarMaker session log of the project' — which distinguishes it from the model/log-save siblings (cm_model_logs_save) and the generic cm_read. It lacks an explicit verb of its own (the title supplies 'Read'), so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger: 'Use it when a run aborts or does not start.' That is a real when-to-use condition rather than vague guidance. However, it names no alternative (e.g. cm_status or cm_doctor for diagnosing a failed run), so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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