metrica.logs_export

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, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, or the meaning of the action enum values such as clean, cancel, or create. The agent cannot tell whether this is read-only, destructive, or requires special auth.

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 extremely short, but this brevity is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. For a 10-parameter tool with nested objects, a single vague phrase does not earn its place.

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?

Given 10 parameters, a nested object, 30% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics needed to invoke the tool 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?

The schema has 10 parameters with only 30% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description must compensate but instead supplies zero semantic detail.

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 'Logs API export (optional)' largely restates the tool name and does not specify what is being exported, from which logs, or what the operation does. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling metrica.hf.logs_export_preset, leaving the agent without a clear purpose.

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 only usage hint is the ambiguous parenthetical '(optional),' which provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. There is no indication of when this tool should be selected over metrica.hf.logs_export_preset or metrica.raw_call.

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