get_addon_log

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral facts beyond them: the log is a ring buffer (bounded retention) and records are ordered newest-last. It does not say what happens when the buffer wraps or whether results can be truncated, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a tight Args block where each entry is one line and earns its place. The trailing 'Reference: operation_help(...)' line is a low-value pointer that could be trimmed. Overall efficient and well ordered.

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 formatting need not be explained. Combined with the annotations and the per-argument semantics, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around buffer wrap behavior and the limit ceiling.

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% – the schema only has titles and defaults – so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it enumerates the level values (DEBUG/INFO/WARNING/ERROR), specifies grep as a substring filter over 'message and detail', defines since_seq as a sequence cursor, and restates the limit default. The limit maximum of 1000 and the precise semantics of level vs. default INFO are not spelled out, so not a 5.

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 the addon's ring-buffer debug log') plus the ordering guarantee ('newest last'). It also frames the operational situation ('while FreeCAD is wedged or a call misbehaves'), which makes the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'diagnose' or 'operation_help', so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear triggering context: use it when FreeCAD is wedged or a call misbehaves. That is genuine when-to-use guidance rather than implied usage. It names no exclusions or alternative tools for overlapping diagnostic needs, so no 5.

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