logs_explorer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions exploring 'latest logs' but doesn't specify what that means operationally—e.g., whether it's a read-only query, how logs are retrieved (real-time vs. historical), any rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence in French, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'explore' entails operationally, the format or scope of returned logs, or any behavioral traits. With no output schema and minimal description, it leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('lines' and 'level') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'level' enum values or default behavior). Baseline is 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Explore les derniers logs du serveur' (Explore the latest server logs) states a general purpose with a verb ('Explore') and resource ('logs du serveur'), but it's vague about what 'explore' entails (e.g., viewing, filtering, retrieving). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'read_messages' or 'statut_bot', which might involve similar inspection tasks. This provides a basic understanding but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools for comparison (e.g., 'read_messages' for chat logs or 'statut_bot' for bot status). Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context or alternatives provided.

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