read_postgresql_logs

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds genuine behavioral context: output is limited to security-event summaries, it does not accept user-supplied paths, and it will not return raw SQL/messages — useful constraints that go beyond the 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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource and then appends constraints; there is no filler. The clauses are packed but each carries information, so only minor readability cost.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the target and output scope adequately, and annotations cover safety. The gap is the undocumented input parameters (limit, since, levels, max_bytes), which an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 only 33% (2 of 6 parameters documented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies only the data source (exact database, no paths) and says nothing about limit, since, levels, or max_bytes, leaving half the input contract unexplained in both the schema and the prose.

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 names a specific verb (读取/read) plus resource (PostgreSQL 当前 JSON/CSV 日志尾部) and the scope constraint (精确 database, log tail). An agent can immediately distinguish this from read_database_settings or execute_query without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('read the log tail for a specific database'), and there is a boundary statement ('不接收路径... 不返回SQL/原始消息'). However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not conditions are given, and no sibling tool is named to route the agent.

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