Read server logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Read' clearly indicates a non-mutating operation and 'log lines' suggests the return type, but the description does not disclose error handling, default line count, or output format details.

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 fluff. It states the action, the target, and the use cases efficiently.

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 read tool without output schema or annotations, the description covers the core behavior, the result type, and typical use cases. It could be improved by mentioning the default line count or error behavior, but it is largely 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?

The schema already describes 'lines' fully (default 100, max 500) and 'server' is a required string whose purpose is obvious from the tool name and context. The description adds no extra parameter detail, and the 50% schema coverage gap is not compensated, but the missing info is minor.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'log lines of a Minehut server', making its function clear. It differs from sibling tools like minehut_status or minehut_command by focusing on logs, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 parenthetical '(useful to check console output, crashes, errors)' gives clear context for when to use the tool. It implies log inspection use cases and is sufficient for an agent, though it does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives.

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