log_tail

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly state 'read-only', which is a meaningful safety trait, and implies tail-style output. However, it does not clarify which log source is read, how much output is shown, or whether it follows the log continuously.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded, with no filler words. 'Display logs to the end' is slightly awkward compared to a phrase like 'tail logs', but the sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not identify which logs are tailed or how it relates to the many sibling log commands, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding among log_tail, log_call, log_filter, and sys_syslog.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so the description need not add parameter-level meaning. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing is missing here.

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 the operation ('Display logs') and the resource ('logs'), with 'to the end' conveying a tail-like behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling log tools such as log_call, log_filter, log_wan, or log_ppp, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like log_filter or sys_syslog. The read-only note is useful but does not explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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