logs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavior beyond that: `seek` semantics, the deliberate lack of tail-follow, and the diagnostic context. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it doesn't discuss return format or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds exactly the information an agent needs: seek meaning, use-case context, and the tail-follow limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and it's concise without being terse.

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 read-only log tool, the description covers the core function, usage context, and a key parameter. The unexplained `profile` parameter and lack of output schema leave some gaps, but the overall context is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool in most scenarios.

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 `seek` parameter is explained as 'seconds of lookback (0 = the whole buffer),' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, `profile` is entirely unexplained and schema description coverage is 0%, leaving half the parameters semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Return the device/host event log as text (read-only).' It clearly distinguishes from screenshot-based tools by noting the log 'names a fault...that a screenshot cannot,' making its niche explicit.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'This is the go-to diagnostic when video/streamer/encoder or power behaviour looks wrong.' It also gives an alternative comparison (screenshot) and warns that tail-follow is intentionally omitted due to transport constraints, setting clear expectations.

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