get_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are de-duplicated into distinct messages with counts plus the latest raw entries, which tells the agent what the response actually looks like. It omits any note on volume limits or windowing, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the de-duplication detail is front-loaded after the resource. It loses a point only because the colon-list structure reads as a data spec rather than a complete instruction.

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 output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the three inputs and the default 200-line window; it explains none of them. It partially covers the return shape, but an agent still cannot confidently construct a call from this text alone.

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 0% for three parameters (service, lines, contains), so the description carries the full explanatory burden but only vaguely gestures at them via 'recent' and 'distinct messages'. The required 'service' selector and the 'contains' substring filter are never explained anywhere.

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 identifies the resource (recent log entries) and its de-duplicated shape, so an agent can tell it retrieves logs rather than incidents like the sibling tools. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it describes output content more than the operation, leaving purpose only implicitly stated.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the incident-oriented siblings (explain_incident, recent_changes, get_service_health), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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