mc_chat_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema: the ordering of results (newest last). It does not state whether the call is non-destructive, whether it blocks, or whether old lines are evicted.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the ordering note appended where it is useful. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: what is returned, how many, and in what order. Only the safety/behavior profile is thin, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 limit parameter already documents its default of 30 and its exclusive minimum. The description's "last N" merely restates that, adding no format or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 pairs the verb "Get" with the specific resource "last N chat lines" and even specifies ordering (newest last). This clearly separates it from the sibling mc_chat, which sends messages rather than reading them, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus reading chat another way, nor any mention of prerequisites or context such as whether chat must be open. The name-plus-verb implies a read-only lookup, but usage is left entirely to inference.

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