Read log file

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description's 'Read' verb, so there is no contradiction. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotation though — it does not mention the remote-host SSH behavior or the allowed-list restriction on log paths, though those details do appear in the schema.

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 with zero filler words, stating the core action immediately. It is highly efficient, though its brevity sacrifices the sibling-differentiation and usage context that the description could have transported.

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?

The schema is rich (100% parameter coverage, examples, mutual-exclusivity constraints), an output schema exists, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile — so the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. The one material gap is the absence of routing guidance among read_log_file, read_file, get_journal_logs, and get_service_logs, which is a real cost for an agent facing this sibling list.

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%, with all four parameters (host, log_path, last_lines, first_lines) having meaningful descriptions including defaults, examples, and mutual exclusivity. Per the high-coverage baseline, the description carries no parameter burden, and it adds none — an appropriate split of responsibilities.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Read a specific log file.' The word 'specific' signals path-based file access rather than journal or service aggregation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from near-neighbor siblings like read_file, get_journal_logs, or get_service_logs, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like get_journal_logs and get_service_logs exist, but no exclusions or selection criteria are mentioned. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone, with no support from the description.

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