tail_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no indication whether tailing follows/blocks or returns a one-shot snapshot, no mention of how date and lines scope the result, and no hint about output volume or format.

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 with the action and its target front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is under-informative rather than verbose, so the brevity is not the main problem.

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?

A four-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation needs the description to explain date scoping, line limits, and what the structured flag changes — none of which appear. For a log-inspection tool whose whole value is controlling what slice of output you get, this leaves significant gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only clarifies mode's accepted values (tester/journal) — useful since the schema has no enum. The date filter, lines count, and structured toggle are left entirely unexplained in both places, which is the bulk of the ambiguity.

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 ("Tail") and two concrete resources (tester journal / terminal journal), which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like read_report or terminal_status. It does not, however, say what a journal is in this context or what distinguishes the two sources beyond their names.

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 when-to-use guidance — nothing says when tailing a journal beats read_report, history_coverage, or terminal_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only routing hint is the implicit "mode is tester or journal" split.

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