Bridge Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds 'recent' and 'configured log directory' but does not disclose behaviors like line limits, file selection, or error handling. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides modest additional context.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, read-only annotation, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality sufficiently. It does not explain return values, but that is handled by the output schema. Minor gap: no mention that logs are tail-based, but defaults hint at it.

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%, so the description should explain the parameters. It mentions 'recent' implying the 'lines' parameter controls count, but does not explicitly describe 'files' or 'lines'. The enum values for files are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond 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 the verb 'Read' and the resource 'bridge and tunnel log lines', specifying 'recent' and 'from the configured log directory'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bridge.activity or bridge.health which provide different data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., code.read, bridge.status). It does not mention context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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