geck_tail_log

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 behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Read.' It does not explain how 'known' logs are resolved, how game_dir affects file lookup, or what happens when a log is missing. The scope constraint 'known' is useful but not elaborated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity leaves out important behavioral and parameter detail that is penalized in other dimensions.

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 tool with three optional parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, this one-sentence description is too thin for reliable invocation. The presence of an output schema may document return values, but the description still omits valid log_name choices and the meaning of game_dir.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters: lines, game_dir, or log_name. An agent must rely entirely on parameter names and defaults, with no indication of valid log names or path behavior. This is a substantial gap with no compensation from the description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies a clear resource: the tail of a GECK or FOSE log file. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that focus on plugins, UI interaction, or cell editing. The qualifier 'known' suggests a scoped set of supported log files, which adds useful specificity.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what workflow it belongs to, or any prerequisites. It does not mention exclusions or related logging/diagnostic tools, so an agent must infer the intended use from the tool name alone.

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