aism_logs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it tails rather than dumps the whole file, it can only touch configured files, and it requires the diagnostics:read scope. It stops short of saying what a missing/unreadable log returns.

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?

Three tight sentences with the operation and sources front-loaded, followed by the access constraint and the permission prerequisite. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the return shape; 'read the end of the log' and the optional line filter make it clear log text comes back. Parameter and behavioral coverage are adequate for a simple read tool, though the lines/limit semantics could be spelled out.

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 50% and the schema already documents site and search. The description adds real meaning for source by tying 'debug' to WP_DEBUG_LOG and 'php' to the PHP error log, but says nothing about the lines parameter (default, max) beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (end of the WordPress debug log / PHP error log), and maps each source value to a concrete file. An agent can immediately distinguish this from aism_diagnostics or aism_db_query without consulting the schema.

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 implies when to use it (inspecting debug vs PHP error output) and scopes the reading to configured files only, but it names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not guidance relative to aism_diagnostics, the closest sibling.

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