instance_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states this is a read-only view of captured stdout/stderr from bridge-launched instances and that the interesting failure information is 'here and nowhere else', giving a strong execution-time mental model. It doesn't mention output formatting or truncation, but the captured-log framing covers the main behavior.

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 tight sentences: the first defines what the tool returns, the second says when to use it. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the key use case is front-loaded early.

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 read-only log tool with two optional parameters and schema-covered parameter semantics, this description plus the schema is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, which scenarios call for it, and how parameters work. A minor gap is the exact return format, but with no output schema this is not critical.

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%, so the parameters port and lines already have clear meaning, defaults, and port resolution order. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool's resource: captured stdout/stderr for an instance launched by this bridge, and ties it to boot failures and mid-session crashes. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'read', but the meaning is unmistakable and it is clearly distinct from the launch/list/stop siblings.

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 direct usage context: when a game fails to boot or dies mid-session, the stack trace is here. It doesn't name alternative tools, but among lifecycle/toolset siblings this one is obviously the log-reader, so the guidance is sufficient.

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