Log Tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'tail', which implies it returns only the last lines, but it does not specify defaults like how many lines, whether it follows in real-time, or the output format. Given no annotations and a non-English description, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely short (a single phrase), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks substantive information that would warrant a higher score; conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (parameter is a free-form selector object) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the selector format, the expected output, or how it differs from other logging tools. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The schema has one parameter named 'params' that is a free-form object or null, with no property descriptions. The description mentions a 'selector' but does not explain how to structure the params object or what a valid selector looks like. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to provide any parameter meaning.

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 says 'Последние строки по селектору (tail)' which translates to 'Last lines by selector (tail)'. It conveys that it tails logs by a selector, but it is vague about what the selector is and how it is specified. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like log_search or service_logs, as it lacks a specific verb-resource combination.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like log_search or service_logs. The description does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would not know whether to use this tool for tailing versus searching logs.

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