get_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states logs are retrieved from the end ('lines' param defaults to tail), which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether logs are truncated, what format lines take, or any side effects. The case-insensitive filter behavior is mentioned, but the overall behavioral profile is thin.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get application logs'). No wasted words. Could arguably add a sibling distinction sentence, but what's present is efficient and clear.

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 2-param read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, given sibling tools like get_errors and the absence of annotations, slightly more context about the log source/scope or the distinction from error-specific retrieval would improve completeness. The tool has zero required parameters and simple types, so complexity is low, but the sibling ambiguity is a gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well (lines with default and max, filter as case-insensitive text). The description adds 'flexible line limits' and 'optional filtering' which slightly reinforces the schema but doesn't add meaningfully new semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool gets application logs with line limits and filtering. The verb+resource (get logs) is specific, and it mentions flexible line limits and optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the 'get_errors' sibling, though 'errors' vs 'logs' is a natural distinction the agent could infer.

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 implies when to use it (when application logs are needed) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs get_errors instead. There's no guidance on which tool to prefer for error-specific vs general logging scenarios, and no mention of alternatives.

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