logs_tail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavior by saying it reads the most recent Logs/*.txt file and does not require running the editor, though it does not cover missing-file or truncation behavior.

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 efficient sentence with the key resource, default, and editor-independence front-loaded. There is no unnecessary text.

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 simple read-only log tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the main behavior, file selection, default line count, and editor independence. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens when no Logs/*.txt file exists.

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 parameter meaning. It does explain that the single 'lines' parameter controls the number of trailing lines returned and notes the default of 200, though it omits constraints such as valid ranges.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns the last N lines of the project's most recent Logs/*.txt file. It adds useful scoping with 'without running the editor,' but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling logs_errors tool.

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 'without running the editor' implies when this tool is useful for inspecting recent log output outside the editor. However, it does not explicitly compare against logs_errors or state when not to use it.

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