get_tail_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'Gets the tail,' implying read-only. It fails to disclose whether any state changes occur, authentication needs, or potential side effects like log rotation or truncation.

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 short sentences, no redundant wording, and the key action stated upfront. However, it could include the default line count without losing efficiency.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It defines the valid log values but misses context like the meaning of 'tail' (last N lines), the default line count, and its read-only nature, which might confuse an AI agent.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It partially covers 'log' by listing allowed values ('dnsmasq', 'ftl', 'webserver') but completely omits the 'lines' parameter, its default (100), or its meaning (number of lines to retrieve).

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's purpose: 'Get the tail of a Pi-hole log file.' It specifies the required log parameter with valid values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_query_log (which retrieves query data) or flush_logs (which clears logs).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_query_log or flush_logs. The description does not mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or situations to avoid.

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