kd_log_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only operation but does not state whether it blocks, what happens if no transcript exists, whether the output is raw text or paginated, or whether it affects the debugging session in any way.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tail operation, though it sacrifices useful structural elements such as an explicit return-value word or usage context.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to understand invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left to infer how the bytes are delivered, what encoding or format to expect, and what error conditions may occur.

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 both 'vm' and 'bytes' are already described with defaults and constraints. The description adds the useful context that the target is the kd.exe transcript, but it does not materially enrich the meaning of the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 phrase 'Last bytes of the kd.exe transcript' clearly identifies the resource being read (the kd.exe transcript) and the operation (retrieving its tail end). It is meaningful and distinct enough from kernel-debugging siblings like kd_state or kd_exec, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'read' or 'return'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether it requires an attached or active kernel session. The sibling list shows many kd_* tools, but the description does not place kd_log_tail in that workflow.

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