Start live disk log watcher

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds that the watcher uses an in-memory ring buffer that evicts oldest lines on overflow. That eviction behavior is a genuine trait not visible in the structured data. It does not describe the returned handle/session, which is a minor gap.

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-loads the purpose, then layers the workflow (start -> poll -> stop) and the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 stateful watcher with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle and buffer semantics well. It leaves open how a started watch is identified for subsequent poll/stop calls, a small gap but one the sibling tools likely clarify.

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 sole 'target' parameter is fully documented with enum meanings in the schema. The description only refers generically to 'a log file' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (start watching) and resource (League Client disk log file) with the exact effect (newly appended lines streaming into an in-memory ring buffer). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling stages lol_logs_watch_poll, lol_logs_watch_stop, and lol_logs_tail.

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 explicit when-to-use ('before reproducing an issue'), names the follow-up tools (poll, stop), and names the alternative for a different need (lol_logs_tail for one-off historical reads). The routing between siblings is unambiguous.

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