job_log

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, yet the description discloses real behavior: text is cleaned (ANSI colours and binary bytes removed, \r progress lines collapsed), benign lines are dropped and counted in benign_hidden, and a missing log while pending is normal due to node prolog. That last negative-case caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource statement and no filler sentences; each option sentence adds information. However it is a single dense paragraph with options (grep, progress, hide_benign, raw) run together, which hurts scannability for a tool with eight parameters.

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 an eight-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers input semantics and output transformations well, but nothing is said about truncation or output size limits (despite a 20-file cap and a default 100-line tail). An agent could still call it correctly, but size expectations remain unset.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the whole burden and does so for 7 of 8 params, including glob syntax with %j/%x/%A/%a substitution, a 20-file cap, extended-regex grep matched per line, and progress field semantics. The `lines` parameter is never mentioned, leaving the tail size unexplained.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Tail of a job's stdout (stream='out'), stderr ('err') or of `file`', which tells an agent exactly what comes back and from where. It is clearly distinct from siblings like job_details or check_job, which describe jobs rather than emit their log text.

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?

Gives concrete selection conditions for each mode: 'For array jobs pass the task id (123_4) to see one task', progress=True to get progress bars instead of text, hide_benign=True to drop harmless noise. It never explicitly routes to a sibling or states when not to use the tool, so no exclusions are present.

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