list_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'accessible' log files are listed, which hints at permission filtering, but it does not describe the output format, whether pagination is used, or any other behavioral detail. For a listing operation, this is sparse.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. Every word contributes, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it operates on. However, it could be enhanced by mentioning the intended follow-up action (e.g., using get_log) or clarifying what 'accessible' means in practice, but this is optional for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids adding unnecessary parameter information.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('accessible log files') with a location context ('on the Qinglong server'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_log, which retrieves a specific log, by focusing on listing the available log files.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating accessible log files, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_log. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, so the usage guidance is minimal.

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