Read the FiveM client log file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail on top — it auto-selects the newest log file and returns lines without channel tags, unlike read_console. It does not describe how the pattern/contains filters affect the stream, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, the target file, and the sibling contrast. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the file-selection behavior is covered. However, with 0 required params and two undocumented filter params, an agent lacks enough to use the filtering capability correctly.

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 coverage is only 33% and the description says nothing about any of the three parameters. Pattern (regex vs glob?) and contains (substring, case sensitivity?) are left entirely undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (tail) plus resource (newest CitizenFX_log_*.log under the FiveM install) and an explicit contrast with the sibling read_console. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 clause 'the same stream as read_console(client) but persisted across sessions' tells the agent the condition that selects this tool over its sibling. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule, but the routing context is clear.

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