Live game logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the buffer accumulates while the server is connected and survives crashes up to the moment of death, which are useful behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or mention side effects, but the nature of the tool implies no mutation. Given the lack of annotations, this is a solid disclosure.

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 two sentences, tightly written, with the core purpose front-loaded. The secondary sentence adds meaningful behavioral context about buffer accumulation and crash survival. Every part earns its place with no unnecessary wording.

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 log-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, how it behaves, and the connection requirement. It does not address potential differences from the similarly named sibling get_game_logs, which is a minor gap, but overall the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%: both 'lines' and 'filter' are well-documented with types, defaults, ranges, and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Return the recent output captured live from the running game' with specific content types (print, errors, warnings, BOOT lines). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_game_logs', which appears to serve a similar purpose, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to retrieve live game logs. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_game_logs, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., must have debugger link). It provides context about buffer behavior but stops short of routing the agent.

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