get_node_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (plain text), the scoping behavior (trailing lines only, default 100), and the raw HTTP endpoint. It does not cover error behavior for invalid node IDs, but for a read-only diagnostic tool the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: verb+resource in sentence one, output scoping in sentence two, and the use case in sentence three. The endpoint hint is minor redundancy but not wasteful.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required, no nested objects) and the schema covers 100% of parameters. With no output schema, the description's 'plain text' and 'trailing lines' notes partly fill the return-value gap. Missing error-case guidance is a minor gap for a log-read operation.

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%, with both node_id and lines already well documented, including the lines=0 full-log option. The description's purpose statement contextualizes the parameters but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the 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 ('Get'), resource ('a node's log'), and constrained behavior ('trailing lines only, default 100', 'plain text'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_server_log by scoping to a node's log rather than the server 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?

'Use it to see why a node's transcodes are failing' gives an explicit diagnostic scenario for choosing this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the provided context is clear and actionable.

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