get_error_log

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only (likely) or destructive, how 'recent' is defined, or any rate limits. The implied read behavior is positive, but lacks depth.

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 sentence, which is brief but not overly concise given the lack of critical details. It states the purpose efficiently but omits important usage and parameter information, making it less effective.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context on what 'recent' means, how errors are categorized, and whether the result is paginated. For a diagnostic tool, more completeness is expected.

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?

The input schema has a single 'limit' parameter with a default of 20 but no schema description. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to provide any meaning beyond the raw schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 returns 'recent server errors and notable events' for diagnosing issues, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_server_metrics' (metrics) and 'read_data' (generic data). The verb 'Get' and resource 'error log' are specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_server_metrics' or 'check_code'. There is no mention of prerequisites, frequency limits, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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