get_firewall_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states read-only behavior and never writes, which is key. It also describes entry contents (ID and raw log text) and the limit's effect. However, it doesn't disclose ordering, time window of 'recent', or any potential side effects beyond not writing. Given the simplicity, the coverage is moderate.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds entry details and parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the parameter and basic return info. The output schema likely details the full response. The only gap is the vagueness of 'recent' (no time window or ordering), but that's not critical for basic usage. The tool is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain the limit parameter. It does so clearly: '`limit` caps the number of entries (default 50).' This adds meaning about the effect and default, compensating for the schema's silence. It doesn't give range or examples, but the purpose is clear.

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 provides a 'read-only view of recent firewall log entries', specifying the resource and action. It is distinct from siblings like get_system_status or get_interfaces, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'view' and resource 'firewall log entries' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 notes the tool 'only reads logs' and 'never writes', which is a behavioral exclusion but not a usage guideline. It doesn't say when to use this tool versus other read tools (e.g., get_gateway_status, list_firewall_rules) or mention any prerequisites or context where this is preferred. There is no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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