sonic_get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses the verb 'Read' to indicate a safe, non-destructive operation and enumerates valid sources. However, it does not describe the output format, pagination, or behavior with invalid sources, leaving gaps beyond the basic read action.

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 that delivers key purpose and source options without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple log-reading tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered there. The description provides a clear purpose and source enumeration, but it omits details about the 'tail' parameter and does not address typical usage scenarios. For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is only minimally complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'tail' parameter at all. It mentions 'Source can be...' which indirectly references the 'source' parameter and lists valid values, but it fails to clarify that 'tail' controls the number of lines returned. This leaves an important parameter semantically under-specified.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Sonic Pi log tails'). It also lists the valid sources, which differentiates it from sibling tools that start, stop, or manage Sonic Pi sessions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context for using logs instead of status checks or other sibling tools. The source list offers some implicit context but no explicit usage direction.

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