read_log_tail

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses tail semantics and large-file efficiency (implying it does not load the whole file), which is real value. It says nothing about failure modes (missing file, permission denied) or what happens when 'lines' exceeds 5000.

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?

One front-loaded summary sentence followed by a lean Args block; every line carries information. The parenthetical efficiency note could arguably be its own concern, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are covered in the description. What remains missing is error/edge-case behavior, but for a 2-param read tool with an output schema this is close to complete.

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 must compensate, and it does: file_path is documented as an absolute path and lines as default 100 / max 5000 — the 5000 cap exists nowhere in the schema. Minor gap: no statement of behavior on out-of-range values.

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+resource ('读取日志文件末尾指定行数') plus a scope note (efficient on very large files), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the natural sibling read_log_head, though '末尾' implies the contrast.

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?

'适合查看最新报错' gives a concrete situation for use and '对超大文件同样高效' hints at a second, but there is no when-not guidance and the sibling read_log_head is never mentioned as the alternative for head-of-file inspection. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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