read_logs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the search scope limit (last 1 MiB per file) and the security warning that returned log text is untrusted data. This materially shapes how an agent should invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: operation and purpose, use case, limitations, and data trust. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler.

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 no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, the description covers the important gaps: what the tool sees, what it cannot see, how deep the search goes, and that output is untrusted. It could be more complete with return-format details, but the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does convey meaning for several parameters—'tail/search' maps to lines/search, 'surrounding context' maps to context, and paths are implied by 'project log files'—but it never explains the projectPath alias or gives per-parameter semantics. Some inference from parameter names is still required.

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 specifies a distinct operation—'Read-only tail/search of project log files'—and adds scope qualifiers ('surrounding context', 'bounded results') that make it easy to distinguish from siblings like db_query or list_processes. The verb and resource are concrete and 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?

It explicitly says 'Use to inspect errors' and gives clear exclusions: cannot read unrelated terminal stdout unless saved to a file, and search is limited to the last 1 MiB per file. No alternative sibling is named, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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