Read log entries

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the mechanism (via log:view) implying a CLI call, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, non-destructive, or any potential side effects. Increased burden without annotations would require more explicit safety info.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the purpose with no extraneous text. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Tool is simple with few parameters, but lacks output format description (e.g., returns raw text or JSON) and error handling. With no output schema, the description could be more complete, but given low complexity, it is minimally adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (lines, package). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline.

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?

Clearly states 'Read the last N lines from the Pinoox log file via log:view.' Verb 'read' and resource 'log entries' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings as no other tool appears related to 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?

No explicit when/when-not or alternatives mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage context implicit. The package parameter guidance ('Omit for single-app') is helpful but not about choosing this tool over others.

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