read_log_slice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple read statement by noting that the file is read directly via Node.js rather than through the shell, and that it works for logs in os.tmpdir(). This adds meaningful implementation behavior not present in the schema. It does not describe edge cases like missing files or invalid ranges, but for a read-only slice tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear usage guideline and a valuable technical note. Every sentence contributes to helping the agent decide when and how to use the tool.

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 low-complexity tool with three parameters fully documented in the schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and an important implementation caveat. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap because the description's 'reads a slice' makes the expected output reasonably clear, though an explicit mention of the return format would make it fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'line range' wording loosely aligns with startLine and lineCount, but it does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The file-path context from previous command responses is useful, though not a direct explanation of the parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reads a slice of a log file by the given line range.' It clearly distinguishes itself from re-running a command, and the tool name is reinforced without being tautological. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and why it exists.

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 when to use the tool: when a log path is already saved from a previous run_safe_command or run_destructive_command response. It also tells the agent to use this instead of re-running the same command with a higher maxLines, giving a clear alternative and preventing unnecessary shell execution.

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