read_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals significant beyond-schema behavior: known service names automatically resolve to latest log files, and arbitrary container paths are allowed. The containerized scope and the lines range are also clear. It does not mention error behavior or side effects, but it does cover the non-obvious automatic resolution and path flexibility.

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 core purpose is stated first, and the rest is a compact list of known services, an alternative usage mode, an example path, and a constraint. Every line is informative and there is no filler. It remains concise while providing exceptional detail.

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 two-parameter read tool with output schema, required context is present: service meaning, known aliases, file path behavior, operation scope, line limit, and example path. There is no gap that would prevent the agent from correctly selecting and invoking this tool. The output schema suffices for response variety; so nothing significant is missing.

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?

Since the input schema lacks descriptions, the description fully compensates: it explains that 'service' may be a known name or a container path, gives two concrete aliases and a path example, and states the valid lines range. This is exactly the kind of meaning the schema itself cannot provide, so the compensation is nearly total.

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?

Reads project log tail content, which exactly matches the tool name and resource. It clarifies the operation focuses on log tail in the container and distinguishes the tool from all siblings in the list, which handle exec, tmux, process checks, or ROS topics. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly gives a duality of usage: pass one of the two known names to auto-discover the latest log, or pass an explicit container path. It also states valid bounds for lines. The only weakness is it never explicitly addresses when to choose this tool over an alternative such as tmux_capture or exec_cmd, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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