Preview logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Recent stdout/stderr' which implies a read operation, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, what happens if the preview isn't running, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a debug tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., separate usage notes, parameter explanations) and packs only minimal information. It's appropriately short but could be organized better without adding length.

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 tool, the description is barely adequate. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the preview must be running), what the logs look like, or how 'lines' behaves. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without critical context for debugging scenarios, making the description incomplete.

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 0%, and the tool description does not explain either 'app' or 'lines'. The schema only provides types and constraints; the agent must infer that 'app' identifies the preview and 'lines' controls the number of log lines. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it returns 'Recent stdout/stderr from a running preview', which is a clear verb-noun combo indicating the tool retrieves logs for debugging. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on preview log access, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 phrase 'use this to debug' gives a clear contextual hint for when to employ the tool. However, it does not mention conditions like requiring a running preview, nor does it state when not to use it or point to alternative tools (e.g., for deployed logs). The guidance is implied but not explicit about boundaries.

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