ue_read_log

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

With no annotations, the description conveys this is a read-only operation ('legge') and specifies filtering options. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., log clearing) but the read nature is clear. Some extra context on permissions or log retention would improve transparency.

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 concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details following. It is well-structured but could be slightly more compact. Overall, it efficiently communicates key information.

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?

While the tool is simple and the purpose is clear, the description omits the return format (e.g., list of lines). No output schema exists, so the description should state what the tool returns. This gap reduces 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by defining both parameters: 'lines' (number of lines to return, default 80) and 'only_errors' (filter for Error/Warning only, default false). This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states it reads the Unreal Engine log tail and is the way to diagnose errors after an operation without exceptions. It identifies the specific resource (log tail) and purpose, and distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other Unreal operations.

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 explicitly advises using this tool when an operation didn't throw exceptions but something went wrong. It provides clear context for use, though it does not mention when to avoid using it or alternative tools, but no siblings serve the same function.

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