ghidriff_job_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the operation is read-only and offers two access modes (tail or page), but it does not explain how tail_lines/start_line interact or whether a job must be running for the log to exist. This is moderate coverage for a read-only log tool.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that puts the verb and resource first and packs the two main access modes into a compact participial phrase. No filler or redundant restatement.

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-reader with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The only material gaps are explicit sibling differentiation and any job-state preconditions, which are not critical for selecting this tool correctly.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including job_id provenance and the exact meaning of max_lines, start_line, and tail_lines. The description's 'tailed or paged' phrase loosely maps to those params but adds no new semantic detail beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the ghidriff console log of a job'), and distinguishes it from sibling result/status/read-report tools by naming the console-log resource. The tailed/paged qualifier adds further specificity.

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?

No statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghidriff_job_status, ghidriff_job_result, or ghidriff_read_report. The agent must infer from the word 'log' that this is the console-output access point, with no explicit exclusions or routing guidance.

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