zen_logs

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

The description mentions 'in-memory ring buffer', which implies non-persistent storage and potentially limited capacity. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or data freshness. With no annotations, the description provides some but not full transparency.

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, focused sentence with nine words, front-loading the core purpose. No unnecessary information.

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 zero parameter description coverage, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain return format, date format for 'since', or log line structure, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of parameters 'limit' or 'since'. The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names, which lacks clarity for 'since'.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'recent bridge log lines', and adds context 'in-memory ring buffer'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zen_console_logs or zen_audit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for debugging bridge logs but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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