read_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by requiring superuser access and showing how to remediate authorization failures. It also demonstrates filter-template usage with examples, which clarifies expected invocation behavior beyond the schema. There is no contradiction with the read-only hint.

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 into USE WHEN, EXAMPLES, and NEXT STEPS, with no wasted words. The key purpose and access requirement are front-loaded, and each example is short and illustrative.

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?

With an output schema present and all parameters documented in the schema, the description supplies the missing context: access requirements, common invocation patterns, and routing to related tools. An agent has enough information to call read_logs correctly for typical scenarios.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples that map log_id, filter_template, and filter_params to actual calls, showing the template placeholder pattern. It does not explain page or per_page semantics, but the schema already covers those adequately.

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 'USE WHEN you need to inspect request log entries,' giving a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling inspect_server by pointing to it for aggregate stats, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 states clearly when to use the tool ('USE WHEN...') and gives concrete next steps: inspect_server for aggregate stats, and connect(as_='superuser') if unauthorized. It does not explicitly list exclusions like 'do not use for record searches,' but the context and sibling references make the intended usage clear.

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