tail_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful sandbox constraint (paths must live under allowed log folders, default /var/log), but says nothing about what happens on a rejected path, whether the default folder is configurable, or any size/line limits.

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?

A single sentence with the action, the count, the resource and the scope constraint all front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the read-only/idempotent annotations cover the safety side. What remains thin is the constraint mechanics: which folders count as "allowed", what error surfaces for a disallowed path, and whether lines is capped. Adequate for a two-parameter read tool but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load: it clarifies that "path" is a log file within allowed folders and that "lines" is the tail count. It adds no format guidance (absolute vs relative paths), no upper bound on lines, and does not explain that /var/log is a default location rather than a parameter value.

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 states a specific action and resource ("Last N lines of a log file") plus a scoping constraint ("under the allowed log folders"), which clearly separates it from generic readers like read_file or write_file. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it falls just below the top mark.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word "tail" — an agent can infer this is for inspecting recent log output, but the description never says when to prefer it over read_file or search_files, nor what to do when a path falls outside the allowed folders. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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