get_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' and enumerates log categories; it does not state read-only guarantees, response ordering, limits beyond the default, or whether the returned logs are current or scoped to a time window.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence is efficient and easy to scan. The parenthetical 'ТЗ 9' is a reference that is not useful to an agent, preventing a 5.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description and schema together are enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral details leaves the context less complete than it could be.

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%, and the description does not explain the limit parameter or explicitly map 'запросов/ошибок/аудита' to log_type. The schema's enum and defaults give basic meaning, but the description adds little beyond restating the categories.

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 uses a specific verb 'Получить' (get) and names the resource 'логи запросов/ошибок/аудита', which tells an agent this is a log-retrieval tool with three categories. It is clearly distinct from siblings like sql_query or get_schema, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 use case is implied: call this tool when query, error, or audit logs are needed. There is no explicit comparison to alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, so the agent must infer applicability from the title and description.

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