Get Supervisor / add-on log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a Supervised/HAOS prerequisite and the fact that it works through the VomeHome broker with read scope.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource list, with the differentiator and the constraint following. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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 could say more about what the tail output looks like (format, truncation, whether it streams), but it does cover scope, prerequisites and the broker path. Adequate for a read-only log accessor.

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%, so target, addon_slug, tail_lines and instance_id are all already documented, including the enum values and defaults. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 concrete verb (tail) and enumerates the exact resources (add-on, HA Core, Supervisor, host), and explicitly distinguishes itself from HA's own error log. An agent can tell it apart from ha_get_error_log / ha_get_system_log without opening any 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 a clear when-to-use trigger: problems that never reach HA's error log, with concrete symptoms (crash-looping add-on, failed install, host-level trouble). It does not name the sibling log tools as explicit alternatives, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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