get_recent_logs

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. 'Get' implies a safe read, but it omits whether monitoring must be running, whether logs are paginated or bounded, and how far back 'recent' reaches — all material for a log-retrieval tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the key scope word ('recent') front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter coverage, the description leaves out return shape, ordering, and the dependency on an active log monitor. For a tool whose usefulness hinges on monitoring state, this is a significant gap.

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 67% and the description explains none of the three parameters. It does not clarify what 'recent' means relative to the limit default of 50, nor how address and filterId interact when combined.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent contract logs from monitoring history'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from write operations like start_log_monitoring. However, it does not name a sibling or clarify scope boundaries (e.g., vs. get_recent_blocks or start_log_monitoring), so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives mentioned. The one indirect hint is the schema's filterId referencing start_log_monitoring, but the description itself says nothing about needing an active monitoring session.

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