Return log entries that appeared since the last call to watch_log. First call returns the last 20 lines as a baseline. Use this for iterative debug loops.
Return log entries that appeared since the last call to watch_log. First call returns the last 20 lines as a baseline. Use this for iterative debug loops.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reset | No | Reset the watch position to the end of the log (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the stateful cursor behavior and baseline semantics. The reset parameter is documented in the schema, so the core behavioral surprises are covered, though the description itself does not elaborate on them.
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 three short, purposeful sentences. The core behavior is front-loaded, the baseline behavior is explained, and the intended use case is stated without any wasted words.
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 simple stateful log watcher, the description plus schema covers the essential behavior and usage. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is a minor gap given the straightforward nature of the tool and its focus on iterative loops.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single reset parameter, and the parameter description already explains its meaning. The tool description adds useful context about the first-call baseline but does not need to explain the parameter further.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning log entries since the previous call, with a first-call baseline of the last 20 lines. This distinguishes it from a plain full-log reader like read_log by emphasizing the incremental, stateful behavior.
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 explicitly states the intended use case: iterative debug loops. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer the sibling read_log tool instead, but the incremental-watch framing provides enough context for an agent to choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.