spawn_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool shows but not how it behaves (e.g., real-time streaming, return format, side effects, access requirements). The word 'live' hints at streaming but is ambiguous. This lack of detail leaves significant gaps.

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 two concise sentences. The first front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second gives a practical usage condition. No fluff or redundancy; every word 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns or provides. It does not describe the format, granularity, or how logs are presented. It also lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., project setup). Given these gaps, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's output.

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 100% for the single parameter 'projectDir', which is already documented with defaults. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, but it also does not need to because the schema covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides 'Variant logs + live room script logs', identifying its resources and distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle status or console output. The verb is implicit ('get' or 'show'), but the specific resource combination and use-case hint make the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

Explicitly provides a 'Use when' condition: 'behavior doesn't match what you pushed.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for a straightforward logging tool.

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