Server has 6 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps limit production readiness. All tools have descriptions (10-50 chars, mostly short), and input schemas are present with type definitions. However, parameter descriptions are sparse or missing entirely. No output schemas documented. Error handling is minimal, no recovery guidance or actionable error messages. Tool naming follows verb_noun convention (get_, tail_, search_) which is good. The watch_log tool lacks clarity on how monitoring works (streaming? polling?). No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) despite all being read-only operations. Composition is reasonable, tools are single-purpose, but descriptions don't explain when to use each tool vs. alternatives (e.g., tail_log vs. search_logs).

• Document output schema for each tool. Example for tail_log: {type: 'object', properties: {filename: {type: 'string'}, lines: {type: 'array', items: {type: 'string'}}, total_lines: {type: 'number'}}, required: ['filename', 'lines']}
• Add range constraints to numeric parameters. E.g., 'lines' in tail_log: 'Number of lines to return (1-1000, default: 50)'. Prevents LLM from requesting absurd values.
• Expand parameter descriptions with validation rules. E.g., filename: 'Name of the log file (must end in .log or .txt, no path traversal allowed, default: combined.log)'
• Add tool annotations to all tools. Include 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'idempotentHint: true' in each tool definition to signal safe retry behavior.
• Clarify watch_log behavior in description: 'Monitor a log file for changes in real-time. Returns new lines as they are written. Connection remains open until client disconnects or timeout (5 min) is reached.'