read_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output formats and the lines parameter behavior (first/last N lines), but omits details on encoding handling, the is_beta flag effect, and error conditions. This adds some value over the schema but lacks completeness.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently covers key aspects (file types, output formats, lines parameter).

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 the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description explains file type, output format options, and the lines parameter. However, it lacks explanation for encoding and is_beta, and does not detail the return structure despite the output schema existing. Gaps remain for complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It briefly explains file path, output formats (list of enum values), and lines parameter (first/last N). However, encoding and is_beta are not explained, and the difference between core and full output is not clarified, leaving gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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 reads Stata log files (.log or .smcl) and returns content. It specifies supported output formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on package installation, data info, help, or Stata execution.

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 mentions using 'lines' to get first/last N lines, providing some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving context implied.

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