actiond_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about log entry content (timestamp, level, message) and that plugin execution results and system events appear, without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured with short sentences, no redundant filler, and front-loads the core purpose and output format. It includes just enough guidance without being verbose.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, output format, use case, and alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 fully covers the only parameter (limit, with description and default). The description repeats this information without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action (read recent ActionD server runtime log entries) and the resource (server logs). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as actiond_diagnose (which interprets errors) and actiond_action_get/list (which inspect actions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('inspect raw output after actiond_actions_list or actiond_action_get surfaces a failure') and when not to ('prefer actiond_diagnose when you want errors interpreted'). This gives concrete usage guidance relative to alternatives.

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