get_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation (returns log file content) with no side effects mentioned. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or potential limitations like missing logs. The description is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second adds key parameter details. Efficient 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers functionality. It mentions auto-detection, launcher options, instance support, and tail behavior. Could specify return format or error cases, but overall sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by explaining auto-detection behavior, that instance is only for Prism, and that line count is configurable with tail option. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Get Minecraft instance logs' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are wiki or spyglass related, and provides additional context about auto-detection and launcher options.

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 usage for retrieving Minecraft instance logs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides guidance on parameter choices (auto-detect vs specify launcher) but lacks exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use.

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