read_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the log window (entries since probe load) and that incremental polling is supported, but it says nothing about ordering (newest vs oldest first), what limit does by default, or whether the read is non-destructive/cheap.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the polling tip second. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it covers one parameter and the time bound but leaves the filter semantics and the shape of returned entries (fields, ordering, truncation by limit) unaddressed.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only explains since_id. The meaning and expected values of tag, level, contains, and limit are left entirely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it reads QGIS message-log entries, and it bounds the scope to entries captured since the probe was loaded. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from widget/layer/algorithm siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with any of them.

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?

One concrete usage pattern is supplied: use since_id to poll for new entries. There is no guidance on when to use the other filters, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of when this tool is not appropriate, so usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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