view_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds context such as the derived level field and log structure, which is helpful but not extensive.

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 detailed but front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by avoiding full sentence repetition of parameter details already in schema.

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 the complexity (11 parameters) and absence of output schema, the description provides enough context for filtering and common use cases. However, it lacks information about pagination beyond limit, and no details about the return format or ordering.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the derived field, wildcard support in status_code, and relative times. This enriches parameter understanding beyond bare schema types.

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 it views function execution logs with rich filtering, explicitly listing available fields (status_code, duration_ms, log_output, error, level). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_function by focusing on log viewing, not execution.

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 explicit usage examples (e.g., debugging with `level='error'` + `since='1h'`), but does not specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings. It could be more direct about exclusions.

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