quest_logs_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it discloses the core behavior: real-time capture for a configurable duration, a hard 60-second cap, and return of captured logs. It does not discuss blocking behavior or filtering details, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key parameter, followed by a practical workflow. Every sentence earns its place 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 real-time log stream with optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow and the most important constraint (max 60 seconds). It lacks parameter semantics and return format, but the tool is simple enough that this is largely sufficient.

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 0%, yet the description only elaborates on duration_seconds (including the max 60 constraint). It does not explain the meaning or interaction of tag, level, pattern, device_id, or max_entries, leaving those parameters underspecified.

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 the specific verb 'Watch logs in real time', identifies the resource (logs), and mentions the key parameter duration_seconds. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling log tools by emphasizing real-time streaming and returning everything captured.

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 when to use: while reproducing a bug, start this, interact with the app, then get the logs. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a focused workflow.

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