tailscale_get_log_stream_status

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that the tool shows 'whether logs are being delivered successfully'. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description provides context on the nature of the status, which is helpful but does not detail response structure or side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the key action. It is easy to scan and understand instantly.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description gives a high-level idea of the response but could be more specific (e.g., what fields are returned, success/failure indicators). For a tool with one parameter and simple purpose, it is adequate but not thorough.

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% for the only parameter (logType) with full enum explanation. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status of log streaming for a specific log type'. It specifies what the status shows (whether logs are delivered successfully). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tailscale_get_log_stream_config or tailscale_list_log_stream_configs which manage configurations.

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or comparison to similar tools (e.g., tailscale_get_log_stream_config). The agent might not know when to choose this over other log-related tools.

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