get_monitor_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'get' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, permissions, or what exactly the logs contain beyond the verb. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. There is no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 description covers the core purpose but lacks additional context that would be useful, such as warning that logs are historical or that pagination is supported. However, the presence of an output schema and the detailed parameter schema mitigate some of this, making the description minimally complete but not rich.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (monitor_id, limit, offset), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already documents, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves up/down event logs for a specific monitor, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_monitor and get_monitors by focusing on logs rather than monitor details or lists.

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 implies use for retrieving event logs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or direct comparison to get_monitor (current status) or other monitoring tools, leaving the usage context implicit.

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