novada_capture_logs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral details: it wraps a POST endpoint, supports pagination with 'page' and 'page_size' (max 200), and reveals a server-side typo compatibility where 'start_time' also emits 'strat_time.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 is five lines: three sentences and a bullet list. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose. Every line adds value—purpose, usage, parameters, auth—without unnecessary fluff. Could be slightly more streamlined, but it's well-structured and front-loaded.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (2 required), pagination, a status filter, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details (including a known bug), auth fallback, and pagination limits. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively, though response format is not described.

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 60% (3 of 5 params have descriptions). The description supplements the schema by listing all parameters, noting date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), the 'strat_time' bug, pagination max (200), and status filter options. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'Paginated capture-task logs' and specifies its use for 'auditing what was captured, debugging failed capture jobs.' It also mentions the underlying API endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on scraping, proxies, or other non-log actions.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with 'Best for: Auditing what was captured, debugging failed capture jobs.' It also notes the optional parameters and auth fallback. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to determine appropriate contexts.

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