Get Log

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

The description adds a behavioral detail not covered by annotations: that entries with unparseable timestamps are included conservatively. This enhances understanding. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. No contradictions.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary action and scope, the second lists filtering options. Both sentences are informative and concise. No filler.

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 main purpose, filtering, and a behavioral edge case. However, it does not describe the structure of returned log entries (e.g., fields like timestamp, topic, message). While not required, this would improve completeness. Given no output schema, the description bears more responsibility, but the tool is straightforward.

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 description lists the filtering options that correspond to schema parameters, but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads and filters the system log from a MikroTik router, and specifies the filtering options. This distinguishes it from other 'get' tools that retrieve different resources (e.g., get_system_status for overall system status).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, but the purpose is clearly implied for reading logs. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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