sftp_ultimas_linhas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one real behavioral trait beyond that — it avoids reading the whole file, which matters for large logs — but says nothing about what happens when the file has fewer lines than requested, how encoding is applied, or any size/permission constraints.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core benefit (avoiding a full file read) is placed up front. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 four parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and open-world remote access, the description should clarify the profile concept, path format, line-count default, and encoding. Instead it supplies only the high-level purpose, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details.

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 0% across four parameters (perfil, caminho, linhas, encoding), and the description compensates for none of them. Only 'linhas' is loosely implied by the phrase 'ultimas linhas'; perfil (a profile reference, presumably from sftp_perfis), the path format, the default of 100, and encoding behavior are entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific operation on a specific resource: returning the last lines of a remote text file, with concrete examples (console.log, error.log). It implicitly separates itself from sftp_ler via 'sem ler o arquivo inteiro', but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation requires 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?

The phrase 'sem ler o arquivo inteiro' and the log-file examples imply the intended scenario (tail a large log instead of reading it all), which is useful guidance. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not condition, so the agent must infer that sftp_ler is the fallback for full reads.

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