arthas_read_log

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

The description discloses that it returns the tail by default to keep responses small, which is a behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately explains the basic behavior without needing to mention side effects for a read-only operation.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and a practical hint. Information is front-loaded and efficiently delivered.

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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior. It does not describe output format, but that is acceptable for a straightforward read tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior of the tail parameter and suggesting to pass a large number for more lines, which goes beyond the schema's description of type and default.

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 tool reads the output log of an async job and is used to check results from specific commands (watch/trace/stack/monitor). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its role as a log reader for async job outputs.

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 says 'Use this to check results from watch/trace/stack/monitor commands,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though siblings like arthas_async_jobs provide related functionality.

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