get_isaac_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive by default, scoped to since_last_play, that plain print() outside certain contexts may not appear, and that output includes structured records with severity/source filters. This is candid, specific behavioral context beyond a generic read.

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 well-organized: purpose, capture scope, defaults rationale, then arg descriptions. It is slightly longer than necessary and repeats defaults already present in the schema, but the repetition is acceptable since it reinforces agent-friendly behavior.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core call flow well and an output schema exists for return values. Still, two parameters remain unexplained and alternative routing is absent, leaving clear but non-blocking gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of six params (clear, count, since_last_play, filter_command_id, severity, source) in plain language, which is very useful. However, it leaves command_id and idempotency_key entirely unexplained, and the relationship between command_id and filter_command_id is ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific diagnostic purpose: 'recent WARN/ERROR logs plus captured print() output.' It clearly names the resource (carb/omni logs and stdout from script execution) and distinguishes itself from broader tools like get_runtime_status or get_script_audit_log.

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 context is implied strongly: the tool captures logs from execute_script/reload_script and defaults to the current run, so an agent can infer it is for post-script debugging. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer get_script_audit_log or get_runtime_status, and the only exclusion mentioned is plain print() outside captured contexts.

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