Sim log tail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description redundantly restates 'Read-only' and adds the 500-line output bound, which is useful, but discloses no pagination, truncation, or error behavior beyond that. A 3 reflects modest added value over 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 core content is a single front-loaded sentence covering output source, bound, default, filter, and read-only status. The trailing 'bulc-mcp rules' line references opaque rule IDs and a sibling tool without explanation, which is mild noise rather than useful guidance.

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 with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (bounded console lines) and the available filter. The bounded/truncation nature is disclosed via 'lines <= 500', leaving little an agent needs that is missing.

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 both grep and lines are already fully documented in the schema. The description echoes the same facts (regex filter, default 60, max 500) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource clearly: retrieving the last lines of the engine console output for the current/last run. This distinguishes it from mutating siblings like sim_start/sim_stop, though it does not explicitly name a contrast tool. Purpose is unambiguous without opening the 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?

It implies usage by scoping to 'the current / last run' console output, giving an agent enough context to know when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as sim_status or results_detect for other diagnostic needs.

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