Returns a synthetic plain-text log tail for exercising text-tier compression on non-JSON data; increase lines to supply more text.
Return a synthetic plain-text log tail. Non-JSON on purpose: it is what terse's text tier sees, as opposed to the record array demo_orders returns. More lines gives the text tier more to work on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | How many log lines to return (1-500). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world). The description adds genuinely new information: the output is deliberately non-JSON text, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not detail truncation or exact log content, but the key behavioral trait is 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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The final sentence on line count is slightly soft but ties to the text-tier use case, so it earns its place without bloating the definition.
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?
A simple read-only, single-optional-param tool with no output schema; the description covers what it returns, its format, and its differentiation from the sibling. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though log-tail content or sizing behavior is left unstated.
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% and the single 'lines' parameter is fully documented in the schema with range and default. The description only adds a soft rationale ('More lines gives the text tier more to work on'), which is marginal beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Return a synthetic plain-text log tail') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling demo_orders by output shape (text vs record array). An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.
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 contrast with demo_orders ('as opposed to the record array demo_orders returns') makes the selection rationale clear: use this when exercising the text tier rather than JSON records. There is no explicit when-not or prerequisite statement, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.