vunit_get_test_log

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

While annotations mark readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the tool returns the last 100 lines by default, failure info appears at the end, and a structured 'Check results' section is appended when failing checks are present. It also notes the size cap ('~24 KB max') via the parameter description, but the tool description itself conveys the relevant default behavior and appended section. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter source, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any fluff. Every sentence adds actionable information.

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 read-only log retrieval tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: why to use it, how to specify the test, what the default output is, how to get more context, and when an extra structured section appears. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (lines and test_name), so the tool description does not need to repeat basic definitions. But it adds contextual meaning by linking test_name to sibling tools ('full name from vunit_list_tests / vunit_get_report') and explaining the rationale for the lines default (failure info at end). The 'Check results' detail is not in the schema, so the description compensates for any gaps.

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 opens with 'Get the log output for one test', a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies its purpose: 'which is how you see WHY a test failed.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vunit_list_tests (lists tests) and vunit_get_report (report-level data), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 tells the agent that test_name comes from vunit_list_tests / vunit_get_report, implying the caller should first obtain a test name from those tools. It also gives concrete usage guidance: the default 100 lines is enough for failure info, increasing lines gives more context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a fully explicit usage policy.

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