ecp_apps_tail_logs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('tail') and a precondition, but does not explain output format (e.g., streaming vs. last N lines), whether it blocks, pagination, or potential failure modes. For a log-tailing tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the contextual qualifier ('only meaningful after...') is appended naturally. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though slightly under-specified.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter explanation, the description leaves the agent without key details needed for correct invocation: what byte_count does, what the output will be, and any error conditions. For a tool that might stream logs, this is notably incomplete.

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 input schema has two parameters (app_name, byte_count) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what byte_count means or how it affects the tail operation, and even app_name's semantics are implied only by the name. Since schema lacks descriptions, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.

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 uses the specific verb 'tail' with a clear resource ('app's supervisor-managed process log'), which distinguishes it from generic listing tools. It also adds a key precondition ('only meaningful after a 'start' deploy step'), which helps clarify an important timing aspect. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ecp_apps_flush_logs or ecp_supervisor_list_processes, so it's not a full 5.

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 provides a usage condition ('only meaningful after a 'start' deploy step'), which gives some context on when to call it. But it does not mention alternatives or scenarios where another tool (e.g., ecp_apps_flush_logs or ecp_supervisor_start_process) would be more appropriate, so the guidance is incomplete.

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