Background log status

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description earns credit for adding genuinely new behavior: the summary fields (min/max/mean per unit, link gaps) only appear once the log has ended, which is non-obvious timing information an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether the call blocks, whether state transitions are push or poll, or what happens for an unknown or expired job id.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence that front-loads the core state before the trailing detail. No filler, though the long parenthetical list makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would be.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so field by field, including the conditional post-completion summary. The main residual gap is that nothing describes the failed case beyond a label (error text, exit codes) or how to retrieve the referenced file.

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 single `job` parameter has full schema description coverage including its default ('the latest log'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, and 100% coverage makes 3 the correct 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?

States a specific resource (a background log) and enumerates the exact facets returned: state, records written, last status line, file, and post-completion summary. An agent can tell this is a read-only progress/inspection call, but the description never names the sibling `status`, `live`, or `log_start` tools, so differentiation from `status` is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'background log' plus the schema note 'job id from log_start' hints this is the follow-up to log_start for polling progress. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `status` or `live`, nor whether polling repeatedly is expected.

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