Read game logs

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real context by naming the log locations (ProgramData/Documents), the file families, and default behaviors (tail of latest log, grep filtering). It does not cover output format or size limits, but the behavioral additions are solid.

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?

A dense but well-ordered single passage: purpose first, then actions, with no padding sentences. Slightly long, but every clause carries information about files or actions.

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?

With no output schema and six optional parameters, the description adequately conveys what the tool reads and how actions map to behavior. It lacks any note on result format, but for a read-only log tool it is close to complete.

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 the schema carries the per-parameter detail and baseline would be 3. The description raises this by describing how parameters combine - read returning the tail or grep/errors_only matches - which is interaction semantics the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (Reads) and resource (Bannerlord's logs) and immediately names the goal (debug a mod), then enumerates the concrete file families involved. This is clearly distinguishable from data-oriented siblings like module_info or game_info.

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?

Explicitly differentiates action=list (recent files) from action=read (default, tail of latest log or grep/errors matches), giving the agent a clear selection rule. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over other diagnostic tools, so it misses the top tier.

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