get_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the operation's safety profile, which lowers the bar. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior - logs are returned with the most recent entry last - but does not disclose truncation at the 500-entry limit, default behavior when no filters are set, or log retention scope. No contradiction 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?

One short sentence with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Read the device log') and the ordering note is appended efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

The context is strong overall: 100%-covered schema handles all three optional parameters, readOnly/idempotent annotations handle safety, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The description completes the picture with ordering behavior. The only gap is the lack of explicit selection guidance relative to system_info/ros_list, a minor omission given the log resource is unique among 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%: limit ('Most recent N entries'), topic ('Filter by RouterOS log topic...'), and search ('Case-insensitive substring match') are all individually documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the device log'), plus an ordering detail ('most recent last'). No sibling tool handles the device log, so scope is effectively unambiguous and it can be told apart from siblings like list_firewall_rules and list_dhcp_leases. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied - an agent must infer this is the tool for log reading. Given nearby siblings like system_info and ros_list that could plausibly be reached for 'check the logs', explicit routing guidance would materially help but is absent.

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