Read the last 32 KiB of a named editor log for local diagnostics; review log text for local paths before sharing.
Read the last 32 KiB of a named editor log for local diagnostics. Log text can contain local paths; do not publish it without review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | SeriousEditor.log |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit goes to what the description adds: content is truncated to the last 32 KiB, and the returned text may leak local paths. That is exactly the kind of behavioral and handling context an agent cannot get from structured fields.
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?
Two short sentences, zero redundancy, with the operational scope front-loaded and the privacy caveat second. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description rightly tells the agent what will be returned (a truncated text tail) and warns about its sensitivity. It omits error behavior for a missing or empty log file, which would round out a diagnostics 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 coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is an enum with two self-explanatory values, so ambiguity is low. The description only says 'named editor log' and implies a required name, while the schema marks it optional with a default — a minor mismatch but not compensated with value-level meaning.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('editor log') plus a precise scope ('last 32 KiB'), which distinguishes it from siblings like editor_read_entry or editor_read_member. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource noun does most of the differentiation work.
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?
'for local diagnostics' implies the intended context, and the 'do not publish without review' clause signals a handling constraint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to a sibling when the full log is needed instead of the tail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.