Get Ryubing logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the cursor-based incremental pagination behavior, which is not evident from schema or annotations. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 consists of two concise front-loaded sentences. The first clearly states the core purpose, and the second provides a crucial operational detail without any redundancy or fluff. Every word 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?

For a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the key pagination concept and benefits from strong read-only annotations. However, it does not mention filtering by minimum level, default limits, or what the response structure looks like beyond implying a cursor, leaving some 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 coverage is low (25%, only sessionId has a description). The description adds meaning to the cursor parameter by explaining its role in fetching newer entries. However, limit and minimumLevel are not elaborated in the description, though their names and schema defaults provide some intrinsic semantics.

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 'Read structured emulator logs' uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('structured emulator logs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that control the emulator or manage sessions. Even though the title says 'Get logs', the description adds 'structured' and clarifies the read-only nature, making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage when logs need to be retrieved, but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool. However, the cursor instruction ('Pass the returned cursor to get only newer entries on the next call') provides a clear usage tip for incremental reading, which adds some guidance beyond mere implication.

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