defold_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'tail', but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, nor does it explain the 'mirrored' aspect, potential side effects, timeout behavior, or what happens if no game is running. The minimal description leaves key behavioral details unaddressed.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's core function. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 tool with two optional parameters, the description is minimally enough to understand its purpose. However, it omits any mention of output format (plain text vs structured), whether the log is continuous, and edge-case behavior (e.g., game not running). Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more context would be needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both 'tail' and 'project' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the burden.

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 'Tail of the running game's mirrored debug log' clearly identifies the tool as retrieving the end of a debug log for the running game. 'Tail' acts as a specific verb, and the resource (debug log) is explicit. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like run/stop/start, which are lifecycle actions, so the intent is clear without being tautological.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when it should not be used. The description simply states what it does without routing the agent to a better fit or providing context like 'use this to check the game's recent output.' An agent must infer the use case entirely.

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