get_script_execution_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the SSE streaming mechanism and the wait-for-marker/timeout behavior, which is useful. However, it omits details such as what happens on timeout, whether partial logs are returned, and any prerequisites beyond manual execution. This is moderate transparency but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences long, packed with key information: SSE stream, wait behavior, and usage context. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

The description correctly points to the schema for parameter details and gives enough context about the tool's operation (timeout and markers) for an agent to select and invoke it. Since there is no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It is sufficiently complete for a log-collection tool, though it could mention error conditions.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters with meaningful explanations (e.g., timeout overrides GIMS_LOG_STREAM_TIMEOUT, filter_pattern applies after end marker check). The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get script execution log via SSE stream' and specifies the context 'after manual script execution in GIMS'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on execution log retrieval, which none of the siblings address.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to collect script output after manual script execution in GIMS.' It also mentions waiting for end marker or timeout, giving behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, though none are apparent among siblings.

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