v9_tail_log

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

Annotations already declare it safe, read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the empty-list behavior ('no run or no log yet') and the environment/licence prerequisite (Stochastly open with Atelier or Portfolio licence).

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 purpose sentence is well-formed, but the definition opens with a three-line installation prerequisite and the licensing requirement is stated twice ('Requires the Stochastly desktop app...' and 'Needs Stochastly open with an Atelier or Portfolio licence'), which is redundant weight.

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, the description covers the return value (`lines`) and the empty-result case, and it discloses the runtime prerequisite. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only minor gaps about log size/retention remain.

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% – both `lines` and `run_id` are fully documented in the schema, including the 'latest' default and the >=0 constraint. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the last lines of a batch scanner run's log file, as `lines`.' It explicitly separates itself from sibling v9_get_run ('gives the verdict and robustness counts'), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context: 'Use it to follow a running scan or see why one failed,' and names the alternative (v9_get_run) with the distinct condition that selects it. No explicit when-not guidance or mention of the adjacent tail_app_log sibling, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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