Server log

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: logs are recent, errors carry the resource in brackets, and filtering is optional. This goes beyond what the readOnlyHint alone provides.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns and its filters; the second provides usage timing and a behavioral hint about errors.

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 read-only log tail tool with fully documented optional parameters, this is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, timing, filtering, and error formatting. It does not describe the exact return structure, but that is less critical given the simple log-line nature and the read-only annotation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with clear descriptions. The description restates the regex and resource filters but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves recent server log entries and can be filtered by regex or resource name. It is easy to understand as a read-only tail operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like console_command or server_status.

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 gives a concrete usage context: 'Use after a reload to read what the server said.' It also mentions optional filtering, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate, though it does not state exclusions or name alternatives.

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