demo_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is synthetic, plain-text, non-JSON, and a log tail, which conveys the nature and purpose. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but as a demo read-only tool, this is sufficient context. The description adds value beyond the bare schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It efficiently contrasts with the sibling tool without unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description sufficiently explains the return format (plain-text log tail), the synthetic nature, and the difference from demo_orders, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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 100%: the single parameter 'lines' is fully described in the input schema, including default, range, and semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but since the schema already fully explains it, a baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'synthetic plain-text log tail', clearly stating what the tool does. It explicitly contrasts with demo_orders by noting the non-JSON format and the distinct audience ('terse's text tier'), distinguishing it from its sibling.

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 clear usage context by contrasting with demo_orders: it returns plain-text logs, whereas demo_orders returns a record array. This implies when to use this tool (for text log output) versus the alternative, though it does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or exclude other cases.

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