get_output_log

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the log file path, that filtering is case-sensitive, and that it 'tails' the file, but it does not disclose max_lines behavior, whether it is a live/static read, or explicitly confirm it is a non-destructive read operation. This is partial but useful disclosure.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every element (file path, filter, case-sensitivity) earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior well: source file, filtering, and case-sensitivity. The main gap is the absence of any mention of max_lines and its default cap, though the schema does include the default of 100, partially mitigating this.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for the `filter` parameter (case-sensitive substring) but says nothing about `max_lines` or how it caps the returned lines. The schema provides defaults, but not parameter semantics, leaving an incomplete picture.

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 ('Tail') and names the exact resource ('editor's log file (user://logs/godot.log)'), plus the precise filtering behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clear_output or get_editor_errors.

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 when to use this tool (to view log lines containing a substring) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention when not to use it. There is no guidance on how it differs from clear_output or get_editor_errors, so usage context is only implied.

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