paperclip_get_run_log

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the byte-offset cursor, non-paginated nature, board-only restriction, and authentication requirements, complementing annotations without contradiction.

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 well-organized into clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) with no redundant information, each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

All aspects—purpose, usage, parameters, return format, error codes, and continuation mechanism—are covered; no gaps given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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% (baseline 3), but the description explains each parameter's purpose, provides examples, and clarifies the return object structure, adding value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'read' and identifies the resource as 'raw log bytes for a heartbeat run', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool paperclip_list_run_events.

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 explicit when-to-use ('reading raw execution log output for a heartbeat run') and when-not-to-use ('need structured events — use paperclip_list_run_events instead'), including error handling guidance.

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