list_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: logs are returned 'newest first by default' and can be filtered by level. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or any operational caveats, leaving only partial transparency.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the high-value default ordering behavior and a practical filtering hint.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers default ordering and filtering, but it could be more complete by explicitly noting how list_logs differs from the log-file focused siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds value only by reinforcing the level filter's purpose; it does not clarify sort_key, page_size, or sort_direction beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Page through Sonarr's log entries'. It also gives a clear differentiator from log-file siblings by referring to 'entries' rather than files, so an agent can distinguish list_logs from list_log_files and get_log_file.

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 gives a concrete use case ('Filter by level to find errors quickly') but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_log_files or get_log_file. The intended usage is implied by 'log entries' but not spelled out.

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