List log sessions on disk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description restates 'Safe and read-only' but also adds genuinely new context: it scans standard Riot Games log directories on disk and returns results sorted newest-first. It does not detail failure modes (e.g., missing directories) or result shape, but the added environmental scope is meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it lists and how results are sorted, followed by usage routing and a behavior note. No redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter, zero-required discovery tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (session identifiers/filenames), how it is ordered, and where it looks on disk. Only the concrete result fields are unspecified, which is minor here.

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%, and the schema already explains both the limit range and the target enum values with their meanings. The description only indirectly echoes the subsystem vocabulary ('Client, UX, or Game') and the session identifier hand-off, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List historical and active ... log files on disk') with scope (three subsystems) and ordering (by modification time, newest first). It also implicitly differentiates from lol_logs_tail by describing itself as the discovery step.

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 says when to use it (to discover session identifiers or filenames to pass into lol_logs_tail's session parameter) and names the alternative for the other intent ('For reading log content directly, use lol_logs_tail'). Both the use case and the exclusion are stated.

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