Server Log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It presents the operation as a simple 'get', but the schema reveals a 'clear' parameter that can delete the log after reading, which is a significant side effect not disclosed in the description. The endpoint reference suggests a read-only GET, which could mislead the agent.

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 one short sentence plus the endpoint reference, with no filler. It front-loads the tool's verb and resource, and earns every word.

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 tool has two parameters including a destructive 'clear' option, no output schema, and no annotations. The description omits the clearing side effect and gives no indication of the return format (e.g., raw text vs array). This leaves the agent with meaningful gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions for 'lines' and 'clear'. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameters, but at 100% coverage, the schema suffices. 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 states the tool's function: retrieving recent server log lines, and even specifies the underlying API endpoint. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like sdnext_log_write, which writes to the log, and other informational tools.

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 the tool is for retrieving server logs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or mention of related tools. There is no mention of when not to use it, so the agent must infer usage from the name and verb.

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