panelica_logs_get_v1_logs_errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required scope 'logs:read' and the explicit HTTP endpoint, which is useful context. It does not describe return format, pagination, or what 'error logs' contains, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by metadata lines that are easy to scan. The 'Category: Logs' and 'Read-only' lines add limited value since they are inferable from the name and annotations, but they do not make the description bloated.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only endpoint, the description is largely complete: it gives the purpose, HTTP method, category, and required scope. It does not explain how this endpoint differs from errors_stats or errors_tail, which would be the main practical gap for an agent deciding which logs endpoint to call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to describe.

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: 'Get error logs' with endpoint GET /v1/logs/errors. This is clear and actionable. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as logs_errors_stats and logs_errors_tail, so the agent must infer distinctions from the tool names alone.

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 versus its siblings (e.g., errors_stats for summaries, errors_tail for streaming, access logs for HTTP access). The description provides only factual metadata (HTTP method, category, scope) and no contextual selection criteria.

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