Recent Crab-hole Logs

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

Annotations already fully cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the 'recent' scope and optional error filtering, but it does not clarify what 'recent' means or describe the return format. This is modest added value beyond the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the resource is identified first, and the optional errors restriction is appended as a secondary qualifier.

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?

The description is adequate for selecting this tool among unrelated siblings, but gaps remain: 'recent' is undefined, the 'lines' parameter is unexplained, and there is no output schema or note about the response format. An agent can invoke it with defaults, but not with full understanding of the behavior.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It explains 'errorsOnly' via 'optionally restricted to errors' but does not explain the 'lines' parameter or its numeric bounds/behavior. The description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('recent Crab-hole service logs'), plus an optional error filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are about config, validation, status, domains, rules, and blocklists—none involve reading logs.

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 purpose implies usage when recent logs are needed, and the errors-only option hints at a debugging context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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