tail_log_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only provides basic action. It does not disclose whether it follows the file, performance implications, or any limits. For a read tool, lacking details like 'reads from end' (implied by 'tail') but not explicit.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with clear front-loading of verb and object. No wasted words, but could benefit from a brief elaboration on behavior.

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, the description should hint at return format (e.g., raw lines). It does not. Also missing behavioral details like how lines are counted (e.g., what happens if file smaller than N). Incomplete for a simple 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 description coverage is 33% with only 'path' described. The description does not explain the 'alias' parameter or that 'lines' defaults to 50. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 action 'Read' and resource 'log file', specifies 'last N lines', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'view_logs' (likely filtered) and 'read_file' (reads entire file). The scope 'any log file' is appropriately broad.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that it is best for large files or monitoring recent entries, nor does it state when not to use it.

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