log

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

The description discloses the tool's read-only nature by stating 'View recent entries' and identifies the exact log file location, providing full transparency for a simple operation. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the burden and does so adequately, though it could add details about potential size limits or file-not-found behavior.

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 a single, direct sentence that includes the essential file path. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler content, earning the highest score.

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 log-viewing tool with one optional parameter, the description is sufficient: it states the purpose and file source, and the schema covers parameter details. No output schema is needed for this basic functionality. Minor caveats like error handling are not critical but could be added for full completeness.

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?

The input schema already describes the single optional 'lines' parameter with its default value (100) and meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate due to full schema coverage.

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: to view recent entries from a specific Laravel log file. It uses the specific verb 'View' and names the resource with a concrete path (storage/logs/laravel.log), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like routeList, configGet, or model. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention comparisons with sibling tools or specific use cases, such as debugging exceptions or checking recent errors. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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