Read Desynced game logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a log file must exist and what the tool shows (errors, warnings, print output), but it does not mention behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or potential side effects (e.g., if the tool could block or incur costs). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and capabilities. The first sentence contains a parenthetical requirement that is helpful but slightly verbose. Overall, it is efficient and structured for quick scanning.

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 tail-and-filter tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics: what it does, prerequisites, and filter option. However, it omits any description of the return value (the log content format) and does not clarify how this tool differs from the sibling 'game_logs', which may be critical for correct selection. Given the tool's relative simplicity, a 3 reflects the gaps.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('lines' as integer count, 'filter' as regex). The description adds a brief mention of optional regex filtering (e.g., 'error|warning|Lua') which mirrors the schema, but provides no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. Thus a baseline 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Tail the newest Desynced log file'. It identifies the resource (Desynced log file) and purpose (show Lua errors, warnings, print output). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'game_logs' or other log-related tools, so it lacks the explicit differentiation that would warrant 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?

The description provides useful prerequisites (game must run with -log; -moddev recommended) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'game_logs' or others. It does not state when not to use it or mention any alternative conditions. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage.

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