get_log

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions 'retrieve' implying read-only, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, output format (despite an output schema existing), rate limits, or error conditions. The burden falls on the description, which falls short.

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 sentence with two ideas, making it concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the purpose and parameter intent, though it lacks formal structure like bullet points or sections.

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 no annotations, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It does not address pagination, output structure, or potential pitfalls. Essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains two of four parameters (lastlogtime as seconds since epoch, loglevel as bitmask), adding value beyond schema types and defaults. However, offset and limit remain unexplained, leaving a gap.

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 retrieves the main system log, which is a specific resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_event, get_events, and get_device_history. Mentioning key parameters (lastlogtime, loglevel) further clarifies scope.

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 use by explaining parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other log-related tools). No when-not-to-use or comparative context is provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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