tail_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that using 'hosts' returns a JSON map of hostnames to log output, but does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or behavior for missing files. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a usage preference. Every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral differences and output format. It implicitly covers the 'lines' default (100 is in schema). Missing details on return format for single host, but schema suffices.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the functional difference between 'host' and 'hosts' and the output format for multiple hosts, which is beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool fetches the last N lines of a remote log file, with options for single ('host') or multiple ('hosts') hosts. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tail_container_logs' (container-specific) and 'run_command' (arbitrary commands).

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 advises to prefer 'hosts' for querying logs across multiple machines, providing clear guidance on when to use each parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the purpose is sufficiently scoped.

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