frankability_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the log file path, entry format (NDJSON with opId, timestamp, outcome), and that it returns the most recent entries. It also explains the limit parameter. However, it does not describe behavior on missing files or errors, 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 well-structured with a summary line, a context paragraph, and an Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple log-tail tool, the description is complete. It specifies the log location, entry contents, parameters, and return shape ('{ ok, entries: [...] }'), enabling correct invocation and interpretation without needing to see the output schema.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains symbols_dir as 'Absolute path to the symbols/ directory' and limit as 'Maximum number of entries to return (default 50),' adding meaning beyond the bare 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's function: 'Tail the audit log for a Symbols project.' This uses a specific verb ('tail') and resource (audit log), and the explanation of returning most recent NDJSON entries distinguishes it from sibling tools like rollback or snapshot tools.

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 provides usage context: 'useful for understanding history without re-running ops.' This implies when it should be used, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Still, it gives clear context for its intended purpose.

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