read_logs

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the CLI dependency, a mandatory one-time `npx ggt login` precondition on the machine, and the default window/level. It does not describe output shape, truncation, or failure modes, but the auth prerequisite and defaults are the operationally important facts an agent needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and its scope, followed by the operational prerequisite. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 parameterless-to-invoke read tool with full schema coverage and a stated auth precondition, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and execute. The one gap is that no output schema exists, so a hint about the returned line format would have added value.

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% and every parameter already has an enum or a detailed description with units/defaults/max ('default 100, max 500', '"15m", "2h", "1d", or an ISO timestamp'). The description only restates the level and window defaults, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so 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+resource ('Read recent logs from the Gadget app'), names the underlying mechanism ('via the ggt CLI'), and gives the intent ('to debug errors, failed actions or webhooks'). This distinguishes it clearly from the record/model/GraphQL siblings in the toolset.

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 supplies a clear context of use (debugging errors, failed actions, webhooks) and the schema reinforces it with 'use "error" to find failures'. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use this tool or pointing to an alternative sibling, so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.

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