read_log

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('Read the tail') and parameter details (date format, kind options), but does not mention rate limits, error handling, or behavior for missing files.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the main action and parameter specifics. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (read log tail), but the description lacks details on return format, error cases, and the 'lines' parameter. With no output schema, more context would be beneficial for a complete understanding.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It adds meaning for 'date' (format and default) and 'kind' (allowed values), but omits the 'lines' parameter entirely, leaving its purpose unclear.

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?

Clearly states it reads the tail of an MT5 log file, specifying verb (read), resource (log file), and scope (tail). Distinguishes from all sibling tools, which are for trade analysis or order operations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. Context from sibling tools implies uniqueness, but description does not provide guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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