log_tail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about the default number of lines returned, whether the log is read-only or cleared, or how the guest must be in a running state for this to work. Only the read-like framing ('Last lines of...') implicitly signals a non-mutating retrieval, which is thin coverage for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple tool. The nominal phrasing ('Last lines of...') is slightly less crisp than a verb-first construction but costs little.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what the returned log tail looks like (raw text vs. structured entries) and its default size, but it does not. For a log-inspection tool with zero annotation and zero output-schema support, these omissions leave real ambiguity about what the agent gets back.

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 explain both parameters. It only hints at the purpose of 'pattern' (regex filtering) and never states its regex dialect or whether matching is case-sensitive; 'lines' is not mentioned at all and its default is undisclosed.

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 names the specific resource (guest console log) and the operation (returning the last lines), which is more informative than the tool name alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling console_messages, which sounds like it addresses the same log, so an agent cannot tell which to pick.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this versus console_messages or inspector_raw, both plausible sources of console output. The only usage hint is 'optionally filtered by a regex', which describes the parameter, not when to choose the tool.

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