kodi_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'safe while viewing' largely restates what is structured. The word 'redacted' adds genuine value by telling the agent returned log content has secrets stripped, but truncation/tail behavior and what 'previous' does are not disclosed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the compressed 'crash/stream/storage signals' phrasing is terse to the point of being slightly opaque.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is low-complexity with two optional params. Still, the undocumented 'previous' flag and absent sibling routing leave real gaps for an agent choosing between this and shield_logcat / kodi_read.

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%: neither 'lines' nor 'previous' has any schema-level description. The phrase 'log tail' loosely implies the line-count parameter but never names it, and 'previous' (read the rotated/prior log) is entirely 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 ('Inspect') and resource ('redacted Kodi log tail and crash/stream/storage signals'), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near sibling shield_logcat or explain how it relates to kodi_status/kodi_read.

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?

'safe while viewing' is a safety reassurance, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this tool over shield_logcat or the other kodi readers, and no explanation of the 'previous' scenario (e.g. use when the current log is empty/rotated).

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