tail_logs_tool

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the stateful behavior (first call vs subsequent calls), the purpose of parameters, and the general monitoring use case. It does not detail error handling or the exact return format, but that is covered by the output schema.

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 functional and clear but slightly verbose due to the docstring-style parameter list. It could be more concise while retaining clarity, but it is not overly long.

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 the tool is a simple tail operation with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential behavior and parameters. It does not explicitly mention the stateful nature in a prominent way or how it differs from 'query_logs_tool' for log retrieval, but overall it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: run_id can be from list_runs or a direct path, limit defaults to MCP_ROS2_LOGS_MAX_RESULTS (100), offset defaults to 0, and log_dir is an optional override. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'tails a ROS2 log run for new entries since last check', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_runs' (listing runs) and 'query_logs_tool' (querying logs).

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 explains the stateful behavior (first call returns summary, subsequent calls return new entries) and mentions it is 'useful for monitoring an active ROS2 system'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'query_logs_tool'.

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