ue_read_log

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

The description implies a read-only operation via 'Legge' but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or other behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, more explicit disclosure would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise, using two brief sentences plus parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple read operation with two parameters, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics well. However, it does not mention the return format or any prerequisites, which would improve completeness.

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?

Both parameters ('lines' and 'only_errors') are explained in natural language directly in the description, providing meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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?

Description states 'Legge la coda del log di Unreal', which is a specific verb (reads) and resource (Unreal log tail), and also provides an analogy to Unity's read_console, making the purpose very clear and distinct from siblings.

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?

No guidance is given regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare with sibling tools like ue_status.

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