get_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that auth codes and API keys are redacted from output, which is real value beyond structured fields, but it never resolves whether 'tail' returns a snapshot of the last N lines or streams/follows the log, nor whether the call can block or fail.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the redaction caveat is placed where it matters. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity shades into under-specification rather than economy.

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 two-parameter read tool the description is thin: no output shape (log text vs structured entries), no parameter meaning, no indication of log scope or size limits, and no annotations to fall back on. An agent can call it, but cannot call it precisely.

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 both parameters ('lines' default 100, 'contains' default empty) are undocumented in structured data. The description mentions neither, leaving the filter semantics of 'contains' (substring vs regex, case sensitivity, which fields it matches) and the meaning of 'lines' entirely unspecified.

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 and resource ('tail the editor log') and adds a redaction note, which is enough for an agent to know exactly what it retrieves. No sibling tool reads logs, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, and 'tail' leaves the streaming-vs-snapshot semantics slightly fuzzy.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the 21 siblings (e.g., editor_status or validate_mod for diagnostics). The agent must infer that this is a debugging aid.

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