omni_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 shares parameter mechanics (sequence cursor, min severity, substrings, tail bytes) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how the ring buffer behaves at the edges, whether output is ordered, or any performance/rate considerations. The 'log ring' phrasing hints at a circular buffer, but little else.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and severity range, then enumerates filter parameters compactly. No filler words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves key context unstated: what the return payload looks like, whether results are ordered, default behavior when no arguments are supplied, and ring-buffer retention/capacity semantics. The parameter semantics are well covered, but the overall tool contract is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so this text is the sole semantic source for parameters. It clarifies all six: 'since' as a sequence cursor, 'level' as minimum severity, 'source' and 'q' as substrings, 'tail' as file-tail bytes, and 'limit' in the context of a log list. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 identifies the resource (in-game log ring), the severity spectrum (TRACE..FATAL + AGENT), and lists filtering capabilities, making it clear this is a log retrieval/filtering tool. It stops short of an explicit action verb like 'read' or 'list', and doesn't actively distinguish from omni_agentlog or omni_errors, but the built-in filters and AGENT level hint at its scope.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs the many log/state siblings such as omni_errors, omni_agentlog, or omni_notifications. It implies log access with filtering, but does not state when it is appropriate, when it is not, or which alternatives to prefer.

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