get_editor_log_errors

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses the privacy posture ('Machine-local only, never uploads') and that it reads a tail rather than a full file, but it omits what happens if Editor.log is missing, whether results include stack traces/severity, and whether it re-reads from a cursor or simply returns the last N lines each call.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed immediately by the trust-relevant constraint. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey the return shape, and it only names the error categories without indicating structure (per-error fields, ordering, truncation when max_errors is hit). For a low-complexity read tool with fully documented params this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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% and both parameters (max_lines, max_errors) carry their own defaults and meanings, so the schema does the explanatory work. The description adds only the 'tail' framing, which loosely reinforces max_lines but adds nothing about max_errors or truncation behavior.

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 and resource: tail the local Unity Editor.log for compile/runtime/test/build errors. The scope (machine-local) and error categories are concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent diagnostics like get_build_report_summary, though the 'Editor.log' resource is distinctive enough to disambiguate.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated error categories (compile/runtime/test/build), which tell an agent when this is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no named alternative for build-level errors, and no note about when the log would be stale or absent.

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