get_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that logs reside in a circular buffer and old entries may be discarded, which is a critical operational caveat. It also clarifies the tool is the sole log source and how grep/level filtering work. While it doesn't describe the exact return format, the disclosure is substantial.

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 well-structured with WHEN TO USE and NOT FOR sections, making it scannable. However, 'Your primary debugging tool' and 'Check logs before drawing conclusions from other tools' are somewhat redundant. Minor redundancy aside, every other sentence adds distinct value and there is 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully equips an agent: it covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, how to filter, and a key behavioral caveat (circular buffer). It also prevents misuse by pointing to alternative tools. This is contextual complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance: recommends grep patterns (error, warning, timeout), explains level filters by severity, and implies tail returns entries from the end. This goes beyond the schema's terse property descriptions and helps an agent use parameters effectively.

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 it retrieves application logs from the running Elixir app, enumerating content types (errors, warnings, crash reports, application output). It also asserts this is the ONLY source of log data, distinguishing it from sibling tools. The verb 'Retrieve' plus the resource 'logs' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit WHEN TO USE section: 'First step when diagnosing any problem' and 'Check logs before drawing conclusions from other tools.' It gives explicit NOT FOR scenarios with named alternatives: system resource usage → get_system_stats, process-level details → get_process_info. This clear directive leaves no doubt about when to choose this tool over siblings.

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