NVDA log

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is narrower and it delivers: entry ordering is stated, and the debug-level precondition is disclosed so the agent understands why results may be empty. It does not discuss truncation behavior from limit or how 'contains' matching performs on large logs, but for a read-only diagnostic that is a small gap.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reads before the diagnostic guidance. No filler words, and the trailing caveat about the debug logging level is the only sentence that could be cut, and it earns its place.

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 need not be described, and the description covers purpose, trigger, and a key precondition adequately for a zero-required-parameter read tool. The one missing element is routing guidance against sibling log/inspection tools, which matters given a 36-tool surface.

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% and each parameter (limit, contains, min_level, include_io, response_format) is documented in the schema itself, including defaults and the privacy rationale for include_io. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the indirect allusion to logging level, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read NVDA's log, the one its Log Viewer shows') and pins down ordering ('newest entries last'), which is enough to distinguish it from the action/speech/output history siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must still infer that nvda_get_action_log is a different artifact.

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?

Gives a concrete use case with a triggering symptom ('after a command did nothing') and a target ('tracebacks from add-ons, app modules or NVDA itself'). It also warns that DEBUG entries only exist when NVDA's logging level is set to debug, which heads off a false negative, but it never contrasts itself with the other log-like tools.

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