Inspect Workbench and Game Logs

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds value by explaining it groups errors and provides remediations, but does not disclose potential side effects or access requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is bilingual, adding length. The English part is one concise sentence covering main actions. Could be slightly more compact, but no unnecessary filler.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and siblings, the description covers the core purpose but omits output format, prerequisites (e.g., log configuration), and error handling. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so description must compensate. The 'log' parameter is partially explained as a selected or newest configured log, but 'tailBytes' (integer with default and bounds) is not described at all. Schema provides type info but no context.

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 tool analyzes logs, groups actionable errors, and provides bilingual remediations. It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'group') and distinguishes from siblings like inspect_project or read_project_file.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., inspect_project, read_project_file). The description mentions 'selected or the newest configured log' but lacks context for choosing this over sibling tools.

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