Get engine startup errors

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It explicitly states it 'Reads' the log, indicating a read-only operation. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but the core behavior is clear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action ('Read the engine's captured console log'), no extraneous words. Every part contributes to clarity.

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 explains what it does but not the return format. Given there is no output schema, the agent lacks details on how errors are surfaced. However, for a simple retrieval tool, this may be 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 0%, and the description adds no information about the single parameter 'instance'. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which only provides type and default. The description should have clarified the parameter's meaning.

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 clearly states it reads the engine's console log to surface DECORATE/ACS compile errors and fatal startup errors. It distinguishes itself by noting it works when the bridge never came up, differentiating from sibling tools that require a connection.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('exactly when the other tools can't connect'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is well-scoped.

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