read_error_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose non-obvious behavior: logs come from the 'detected install' (auto-detection) and lines are explained through a knowledge base. It omits failure modes such as no install detected, missing log files, or whether the explanation step can fail independently.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the parameter enumeration. No filler; it could be marginally tightened but nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotations and a mutation-free but environment-dependent read, the description leaves prerequisite and failure context (install detection, missing logs) unstated.

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 0% and the schema carries no enum for component, so the description's 'apache', 'mysql' or 'all' enumeration adds real value beyond the bare string type. The tail parameter is left unexplained, though its meaning and default are reasonably inferred from 'Read the tail' and the schema 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (tail of Apache/MySQL error logs) plus an extra behavior (explaining error lines via the knowledge base). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like check_port, though it never names or contrasts them.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Given siblings diagnose_stack and explain_symptom, an agent gets no signal on when log reading is the right entry point versus symptom explanation or stack diagnosis.

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