get_server_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool returns plain text, only trailing lines, defaults to 100, and that the full log is potentially very large. This goes beyond the parameter schema and helps set expectations.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The endpoint, return type, default behavior, and caveat are all communicated efficiently and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned, the default behavior, and a relevant warning. It could mention how the 'lines' parameter interacts with the 'full log' note, but the schema already covers that.

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 input schema already fully documents the lone 'lines' parameter, including default and the 0-for-full behavior. The description mostly repeats this and adds only a caveat about log size, so it adds minimal new semantic value.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the Tdarr Server log'), states the return format ('as plain text'), and includes the exact API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_log.

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 gives clear context: this retrieves only the trailing lines of the server log and warns that the full log can be very large. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the server vs node distinction is implied by the resource naming.

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