spawn_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a hard prerequisite (a live room must exist, and spawn_client_join can boot one headless), but says nothing about output format, freshness/live-tailing behavior, or log volume limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then when to use it, then the prerequisite. No filler, though the em-dash aside is slightly loose.

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?

Purpose, trigger, and prerequisite are covered, but there is no output schema and the description never characterizes the return payload (format, scoping, whether logs stream or snapshot). For a diagnostics tool an agent must parse, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting the absolute path, default resolution order (SPAWN_PROJECT_DIR / process cwd). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (variant logs plus live room script logs) and the kind of content retrieved, which is enough to distinguish it from the sparse sibling set. It is a noun phrase rather than a clean verb+resource, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('use when behavior doesn't match what you pushed') and contrasts the source of truth with the push receipt. It also names spawn_client_join as the prerequisite path to obtain a live room, though it does not survey true alternative log sources.

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