erlc_v1_commandlogs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not what 'command logs' contain, whether results are paginated or capped, what timeframe is covered, or what permissions are needed. It is a bare restatement with zero behavioral context.

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 single sentence is short but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than compression of useful content. Nothing is front-loaded because there is effectively nothing to front-load.

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 output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is the only source of information about what this tool returns, and it says nothing beyond the resource name. For a log-retrieval tool sitting among many similar siblings, this is inadequate.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule this scores 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 restates the tool name ('command logs') with a generic 'Get' verb, adding essentially no information. It does not distinguish this tool from closely named siblings such as erlc_logs, erlc_command, erlc_v1_killlogs, or erlc_v1_modcalls, so an agent cannot tell which log source this returns.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative among the many log-related siblings. The agent is left to guess whether this or erlc_logs/erlc_command is the correct call.

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