machine-logs

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Tail the machine's console log. Local only.' It does not disclose that tailing is a continuous streaming operation (potentially long-running), whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles log rotation, or what the output format is. For a tool that likely streams data, this is a significant 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 extremely concise at six words, and it is front-loaded with the primary action ('Tail the machine's console log') followed by the scope restriction ('Local only'). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 that there is an output schema and the tool complexity is moderate (tail command with 3 params), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (even though an output schema exists, it may not fully capture streaming behavior), nor does it address how the tail parameter affects the call. For a tail operation, one would expect details on streaming behavior or termination conditions, which are missing.

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 67%. The schema already documents the 'name' parameter (machine name) and 'target' parameter (local vs cloud). The description adds the qualifier 'Local only' which reinforces that the target is local, but it does not add new meaning to the 'tail' parameter, which lacks a description in the schema. With 67% coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully clarify the 'tail' parameter's meaning (number of lines? bytes?).

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 (tail) and the resource (machine's console log), and specifies 'Local only' to distinguish from cloud targets. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that goes beyond a mere restatement of the name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read-file or get-machine, though for an agent the action of tailing is distinct enough from those.

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 mentions 'Local only' which gives a hint about when to use this tool (for local machines), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. It lacks clear guidance on when to prefer this over read-file or get-machine. The sibling tools are numerous, so the absence of explicit exclusions makes this only minimally adequate.

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