logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it reads logs, but does not disclose any side effects, access requirements, output format, or limits. It does not contradict anything, but offers very little beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that states the action and subject without padding. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could arguably be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what the logs contain, how parameters combine, what the return format is, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their meaning. The tool description itself adds nothing about how parameters like 'search' or 'worker_id' interrelate, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('real log files from the agent-os system'), making the core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like metrics or status, but the term 'real log files' helps distinguish it from aggregated metrics or system status.

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 the tool should be used when you need to inspect actual log file contents, which suggests a basic use case. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as metrics or status, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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