read_server_log

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state the operation is a read and that only the last N lines are returned, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits any details about return format, error behavior, or whether the tool is fully read-only in practice beyond the word 'read'.

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, tight sentence that states the verb, target, and scope with no filler or redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 one-parameter, schema-covered read operation this is nearly complete. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing the result as lines. The main gap is the lack of guidance about when to prefer search_server_log, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major defect.

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 100%: the only parameter, limit, is documented as 'Number of lines to read'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond mapping 'N' to this limit, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('SAMP server_log.txt'), and a clear scope ('last N lines'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_server_log and read_server_cfg without needing to open either schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given a sibling search_server_log exists that is likely better for pattern-based log investigation, the description should at least hint at the difference, but it does not.

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