hpc_fetch_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 read-only behavior, path restriction (must be under project root), a byte cap (512KB), and the tail semantics. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but the disclosed traits are substantial.

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 two sentences plus a short Args list. Every sentence adds value: the first defines purpose, the second constrains parameters. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It adequately covers the two parameters and the tail semantics. Minor omission: error cases or behavior when file not found, but overall complete for the tool's scope.

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 0%, so the description is essential. It adds clear meaning: 'path' is an absolute remote path under allowed project root; 'max_bytes' controls how much of the end to return with a cap. This goes well beyond the schema's type/title.

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 'Read' and the resource 'log or small text file' with 'tail semantics', and 'from inside the project jail' distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on jobs, quotas, or other resources.

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 implies usage for reading file tails via 'tail semantics' and parameter constraints, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling list is diverse, but no guidance on selection is given.

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