Tail overseer task output

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses rich behavioral details: the status line contents (status, exit_code, total), the behavior of `since`/`from` for incremental output and detecting scroll-past, the blocking behavior of `wait_for`, timeout defaults and max, and the `waited` field distinguishing match/exit/timeout. This fully discloses the tool's runtime behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers each parameter and behavioral nuance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure flows logically: purpose, task selection, status line, incremental reading, wait_for behavior, and timeout semantics. Despite its length, it is tightly written with no 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?

With no output schema and low schema parameter coverage, the description carries the full burden for explaining inputs and outputs. It explains return values (status line, `from`, `waited`), parameter behavior, and edge cases (scroll-past detection). The tool is complex, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 20% (only `lines` has a description), but the tool description compensates thoroughly: it explains `task` (numeric id or case-insensitive name substring, omit for most recent), `since` (pass previous total to get new lines), `wait_for` (regex to block until match), and `timeout_ms` (default 15000, max 120000). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Return a task's live output, preceded by a status line.' This specifies the verb (return/tail), resource (task output), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like overseer_list_tasks or overseer_run. The differentiation is explicit: 'so you never need a separate overseer_list_tasks to find out whether what you are tailing is still alive.'

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it tells you to use `wait_for` instead of repeated polling, and explicitly notes you don't need overseer_list_tasks for status. It also explains when to omit `task` (for the most recent task) and how to use `since` for incremental reads. This covers both alternatives and usage context clearly.

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