Tail logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying the output is a 'bounded snapshot, not a live stream' — an important expectation-setting detail an agent would otherwise have to guess from the paging limit.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the trigger condition front-loaded and the key caveat second. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger and the snapshot nature, but says nothing about log line format, ordering, or what happens when no logs exist. Adequate to call correctly, but an agent must infer the return shape.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, three params (build, level, buildId) are documented in the schema, while project/service are self-evident strings and limit carries default/min/max. The description mentions service and build conceptually but adds no syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource — showing recent log output from a Lizard service or build — which is clearly distinct from siblings like deploy_events or metrics_get. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Use this when the user wants to see recent log output' gives a concrete trigger condition, and the build qualifier narrows it further. It stops short of naming alternatives (deploy_events, ci_run_show) or exclusion cases, so it's clear context without routing.

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