ue_read_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It indicates a read-only operation (reading log tail) but does not explicitly state it has no side effects, nor does it cover error conditions, permissions, or output format. This leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, then lists parameters in a clear structured format. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description lacks explicit mention of return format (e.g., string or list). However, parameters and use case are covered. Given the simplicity, it is moderately complete but could specify the output type for the agent.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'lines' (number of final lines to return, default 80) and 'only_errors' (filter to Error/Warning only). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 tail of the Unreal log for debugging after non-exceptional operations. The verb 'legge' and resource 'coda del log di Unreal' are specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other Unreal actions.

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 context for use ('after an operation that didn't throw exceptions') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since no sibling tool reads logs, the guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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