wait_for_log_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the transparency burden. It discloses blocking, streaming, and the JSON map return for multi-host usage, including success/error/timeout statuses. However, it does not detail the single-host return format or what happens on timeout for a single host, leaving a minor gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and no filler. The second sentence provides valuable use-case context, making it concise and well-structured.

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 covers the core blocking behavior and multi-host return format, but it falls short on single-host return details and timeout semantics for a single host. Since there is no output schema, these missing details affect completeness for a wait tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the host vs hosts distinction, emphasizing concurrent execution, and describing the return map for hosts, which goes beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 starts with 'Blocks and streams a remote log file or Docker container logs on a single host or multiple hosts concurrently until a regex pattern is matched or a timeout is reached,' clearly stating the specific verb, resource, and conditions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tail_log and tail_container_logs by emphasizing the blocking/waiting behavior.

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 says it is 'Extremely useful for verifying startup or events across cluster nodes without polling,' giving clear usage context. It also explains the difference between single-host and multi-host use, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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