Get Log

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: time window measured against router's clock and conservative inclusion of unparseable timestamps, which go beyond annotations.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence delivering the core purpose and the second adding key features and an edge case. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers main filtering options and an edge case. It lacks detail on return format, but the tool's name and purpose imply a list of log entries; sufficient for a read operation.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description only summarizes filtering by topic, prefix, and time window, adding no new details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the verb 'Read and filter' and the resource 'system log from a MikroTik router'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools by focusing on log reading with filtering capabilities, leaving no ambiguity about its 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 description outlines supported filters (topic, prefix, time window), implying when to use the tool (e.g., when logs need filtering). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though no direct sibling conflict exists.

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