logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the seek lookback semantics, the diagnostic rationale, and the deliberate omission of tail-follow because it would block the synchronous transport.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the diagnostic framing follows. The tail-follow note is arguably tangential but it explains a real design constraint, so it earns its place; overall tight with no filler.

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 full annotation coverage, 100% schema description coverage, and no output schema required (the description states the return is text), an agent has what it needs. The only mild gap is that the profile parameter's effect on target selection is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters in full. The description restates the seek semantics ('seconds of lookback (0 = the whole buffer)') without adding anything new, and never mentions the profile parameter, so this is baseline-level value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return the device/host event log as text') and immediately marks it read-only. It also implicitly separates itself from siblings like snapshot by noting the log names a fault a screenshot cannot, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use trigger: 'go-to diagnostic when video/streamer/encoder or power behaviour looks wrong', with a supporting example (stuck encoder behind a snapshot 503). It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative tool (e.g. events) for the case where a structured log is preferred.

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