logs_read

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful operational context: file logging is off by default, the result will indicate how to enable it, and this reads the editor/played game log file. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could clarify the success return format.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and scope come first, followed by explicit sibling guidance and a terse parameter list. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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 read-only tail tool with optional parameters, the description covers the non-obvious pieces: the fallback role, the file-logging prerequisite, and the distinction from game_logs. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the successful return shape would make it fully complete, but 'tail' strongly implies returned log lines.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description mostly repeats what the schema already says: level, filter, lines, and path override. It adds no significant new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Tail') and resource (Godot's log FILE), and explicitly contrasts it with game_logs as the runtime channel. This differentiates it from siblings like read_file and game_logs without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer game_logs for real-time runtime errors, describes this tool as a fallback, and warns that file logging must be enabled. This gives concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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