get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclosure behavioral traits. It only says 'Get server logs with optional filters,' which implies a read operation but says nothing about authentication, response format, pagination, default time ranges, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool requiring an API key.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though it arguably sacrifices helpful detail for brevity. It does not over-explain and is easy to parse at a glance.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It fails to specify what the logs contain, how filters interact, default behavior (e.g., time range, limit), or how this relates to sibling tools like get_errors or get_warnings. More behavioral and contextual detail is needed.

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 all parameters. The description adds the phrase 'optional filters,' which loosely hints that start_time, end_time, and limit act as filters, but it provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('server logs'), and mentions 'optional filters' as a general capability. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_errors or get_warnings, which are likely specific log types, but 'server logs' implies a general retrieval scope, so it is distinguishable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_errors, get_warnings, or get_commands. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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