pcs_logs_tail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that missing files are skipped, which is a non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know. The wording 'Tail last N lines' also clearly conveys a read-only operation, and there is no indication of hidden side effects.

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 with zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the behavioral exception ('Skips missing files') is added efficiently without redundancy.

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 read-only log tailing tool with a fully documented 7-parameter schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core operation and an important edge case, though it does not mention output format or explicitly how multiple paths are handled beyond 'one or more.'

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 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces that paths are log files and that operation is per-file tailing, but it adds little semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Tail last N lines from one or more log file paths.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like pcs_logs_journalctl or pcs_logs_common.

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 implies usage when you need the last N lines from log file paths, and mentions that missing files are skipped, which is helpful context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling log tools or what circumstances would favor pcs_logs_journalctl.

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