ue5_read_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the cursor semantics (cursor=0 vs cursor>0) and filtering behavior, which are non-obvious. It doesn't mention output format or error handling, but it's a read operation with no side effects.

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 two concise sentences in English followed by a bilingual summary. It front-loads the core behavior (cursor semantics) and then adds the filter and use case. No fluff or redundant details.

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 the tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: cursor behavior, filtering, and purpose. It implies the return value (log lines) through phrases like 'returns the tail'. It doesn't mention pagination limits or error cases, but for a read-only diagnostic tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the cursor logic (tail vs incremental) and how filtering works. This clarifies the interaction between parameters, which the schema alone does not.

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 reads the UE log, explains the cursor-based behavior (tail vs incremental), and mentions filtering by category/pattern. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ue5_check_health or ue5_list_assets by focusing specifically on log reading.

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 explicitly states 'Use for self-service cross-checks of any operation', providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer it's the log-reading tool.

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