logs_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description's addition of 'needs file logging enabled' and 'fallback' status adds useful context without contradiction. Discloses that the tool reads a file, consistent with annotations.

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?

Concise with front-loaded purpose, then usage guidance, then optional parameter summary. Each sentence is informative; no filler. Slightly long but justified by content.

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?

Covers essential info: function, when to use, prerequisite, and optional parameters. However, does not describe output format (e.g., returns lines as text). With no output schema, this leaves a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. Description echoes parameters: 'level='error'|'warning', 'filter' substring, 'lines' (default 200), 'path' to override.' Adds no new meaning beyond schema, but summarizes clearly.

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 'Tail Godot's log FILE' with verb 'Tail' and resource 'log file'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling `game_logs` by noting that tool is for real-time runtime logs, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'For the RUNNING game's errors/stack traces/prints in REAL TIME, prefer game_logs... this file reader is a fallback and needs file logging enabled (off by default; the result tells you how).' Clearly indicates when to use this tool vs alternative and notes a prerequisite.

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