Poll buffered disk log entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value: the watch-start prerequisite, the empty-return condition when stopped, and duplicate-free cursor-based incremental polling. The only omission is any hint about ordering or return shape, which is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisite, alternative, and behavior in a compact structure. The "Behavior: Safe and read-only" clause partly restates annotations, a small redundancy, but overall it is tight and earns its place.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, gating prerequisite, the alternative sibling, and polling semantics. It does not describe the shape of returned entries, but with no output schema that is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for the cursor parameter by explaining it as a sequence cursor enabling incremental, duplicate-free polling. The level/search/limit filters get no extra description beyond the schema, keeping this just above baseline.

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 (poll) and resource (newly buffered disk log entries from the active watcher) with explicit scope (since a given cursor). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lol_logs_tail, which the description names directly.

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 states when to use it (consuming real-time lines while watching is active), the prerequisite (lol_logs_watch_start must be running, empty if stopped), and the alternative for historical reads (lol_logs_tail). Nothing is left to inference.

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