Read last compile log

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool reads the full log from the last build and offers an optional tailLines parameter. However, it does not specify behavior when no build has occurred (e.g., returns empty or error), which is a gap.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds usage guidance and parameter hint. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is largely complete: it explains what is read, when to use it, and the optional truncation. The only missing detail is the behavior when no build log exists, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 100% for the single tailLines parameter, and the description merely rephrases the schema's meaning ('Optionally returns only the last N lines'). It adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'Read the full stdout+stderr captured from the last build_rom invocation,' specifying the exact resource and providing a direct alternative to guessing when a build fails, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 advises using this tool 'INSTEAD of guessing when a build fails,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but no alternatives beyond guessing are needed given the tool's focused purpose.

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