logs_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the file logging dependency (off by default) and notes that the result will indicate how to enable it, which goes beyond the 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?

The description is concise, with two sentences: the first states purpose and fallback guidance, the second lists parameters. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description covers its purpose, fallback context, and the key dependency. It could elaborate on the return format, but the mention that 'the result tells you how' partially compensates, making it reasonably complete.

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 each parameter. The description merely re-lists the parameters with shorthand and mentions the default for 'lines', but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool 'Tail[s] Godot's log FILE' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'game_logs' by positioning it as a fallback for runtime logs. This provides strong differentiation.

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 compares with 'game_logs' and advises preferring it for real-time runtime logs, while positioning this tool as a fallback. It also mentions the prerequisite of file logging being enabled, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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