list_page_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that logs are buffered, deduplicated by default with @logN IDs, and that temporal filtering uses half-open intervals on seq_at_initiation. This is detailed but could mention if there are limits or truncation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no wasted words. Each sentence adds essential information.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no required params, the description covers grouping and temporal filtering reasonably well. It mentions @logN IDs linking to inspect_log. Missing explicit output format but that's acceptable without output schema. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or limits.

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 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains that 'message' grouping deduplicates and assigns IDs, 'source' groups by file, 'level' by severity; what 'all' means for level; and half-open interval for since/until. This enhances understanding.

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 lists buffered console logs with optional filtering, matching the name. It distinguishes from siblings like inspect_log and list_network_activity by specifying it deals with console logs and grouping by message, source, or level.

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 explains when to use it (to list logs with optional filters and grouping), but does not explicitly state when not to or contrast with alternatives like inspect_log. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate use.

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