Logger List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results are paginated; it does not state that this is a safe read operation, what permissions/session/profile is required, whether filters are optional, or any rate/limit behavior.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for an eight-parameter tool, but there is no redundant or poorly ordered content.

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 an eight-parameter list tool with no annotations and no required params, the description is drastically underspecified. Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), the description does not cover authentication/session context, filter behavior, or how it relates to sibling log tools.

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 75%, with host, port, level, module, scheme, and profile documented, but the description adds no parameter meaning itself. It does not explain what page/page_size do, what values level/module accept, or how host/port/scheme/profile interact, leaving page and page_size undocumented in both places.

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 clear verb and resource ('query system logs') and notes pagination, so the basic operation is understandable. However it does not differentiate from sibling log tools such as logger_archive_query, logger_debuglog, or logger_clear, so an agent cannot tell why to choose this one.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The description only states what the tool does; it does not explain when to use logger_list versus logger_archive_query, logger_debuglog, or logger_export, nor any prerequisites such as authentication or profile selection.

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