erlc_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not state what happens when no flags are set, how multiple flags combine, whether authentication or rate limits apply, or what is returned.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no obvious filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is too sparse for a tool with five selector parameters, so its brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, five undocumented boolean parameters, and numerous sibling tools, the one-sentence description is far from complete. An agent lacks the selection rules and behavioral context needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0% for five boolean parameters, and the description does not explain any of join, kills, commands, modCalls, or emergencyCalls. It fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('log and call collections') and scopes it to API v2, but 'selected' is vague and the exact collections are not identified. It does not explicitly distinguish this combined v2 log/call fetcher from the sibling v1 log tools or other call-related tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many v1 log siblings or when to select particular boolean flags. The phrase 'selected' implies parameter-based filtering but does not explain selection behavior.

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