Get AutoDM logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which events appear in the log (comments seen, DMs sent or failed), but says nothing about pagination, time ranges, or retention, and an output schema already exists to describe the return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource scope first and the log contents second; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, this covers what an agent needs to select and call it correctly. Missing only minor operational details like time-range or pagination behavior.

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% and the monitor_id property already documents its provenance ('from list_autodms or start_autodm'). The description adds no format or semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('activity log of one AutoDM monitor') and even names the log contents (comments seen, DMs sent/failed). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from a sibling like get_history.

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?

Scoping to 'one AutoDM monitor' implies the monitor_id requirement and that list_autodms/start_autodm supply that ID, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given against alternatives such as get_history.

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