List log files

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description usefully adds traversal depth, symlink skipping, newest-first ordering, and that size and readability are included, which goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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 definition is a single dense sentence with no filler. Important scoping details such as directory depth, symlink handling, and ordering are front-loaded.

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 rich annotations, the description covers the key behavioral details an agent needs: traversal scope, ordering, and returned metadata. The only minor gap is that it does not mention the limit parameter's effect on results, though the schema documents that.

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%, and the sole limit parameter is documented in the schema with a default of 100 and bounds. The description adds no extra detail about the limit or truncation behavior, so this sits at the baseline.

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 and scope: regular files under configured log directories, two levels deep, with symlinks skipped. It implicitly distinguishes this inventory tool from content-reading siblings like read_log and journal_tail, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'lists'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_log or journal_tail. The scope implies it is for inventorying log files rather than reading contents, but the agent must infer that from the resource description alone.

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