read_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: multi-location search, explicit reporting when the log is missing, and the WS_LOG_PATH override. It does not, however, describe return shape or how tail/grep interact, so a 3 rather than a 4.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core action and default path front-loaded. '...' and 'searched in likely locations' are slightly vague, but there is no wasted 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 no-output-schema, read-only tool of this complexity, the description covers the essentials plus failure behavior. The unresolved overlap with the log_tail sibling and the unexplained tail parameter keep it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps 'optional regex filter' to grep and the file candidates to which, but never explains tail (how many lines, direction, default 200). It compensates for two of three parameters, leaving one undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it tails a game log, names candidate files (gen/log.txt, log_prev.txt, lagDiagnostics.log) and the optional regex filter. An agent immediately knows what it does, but the description never distinguishes it from the sibling log_tail, which appears to do something very similar.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite a near-identical sibling (log_tail) and a related log_errors tool. The mention of WS_LOG_PATH and default locations is environmental context, not usage guidance.

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