read_editor_log

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

The description adds the behavioral detail of reading the last tail_lines lines, but beyond that, it does not disclose additional traits. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited value. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, it could include parameter explanations without much overhead.

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 read operation, the description covers the main function but lacks parameter details and output format. Given no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing the return type (plain text lines).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions tail_lines by name but does not explain the 'previous' boolean parameter. The agent cannot infer the purpose of 'previous' from the description alone.

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 clearly states the verb ('reads'), the resource ('Unity Editor log file'), and the scope ('last tail_lines lines'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_hub_logs or read_project_file by specifying it is for Editor.log and Editor-prev.log.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_hub_logs or detect_errors_in_log. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparison with siblings.

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