List server logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the ordering ('newest-first') and the content of each entry ('kind, size and start time'), which are behavioral traits beyond just 'list'. It also defines the scope (live console plus rotated logs), but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention potential permissions or failure modes.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output details, and the second sentence gives practical usage guidance. It is concise and well-structured.

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 a simple input surface (one optional parameter) and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what logs are included, ordering, available fields, and when to use it, making it complete for effective agent selection and invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter service_id, including its default behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (List) and identifies the resource precisely: 'the server's log files'. It enumerates specific log types (live console, chat, user, admin, map, pvp, DebugLog-server) and output fields (kind, size, start time), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pz_list_files or pz_tail_log.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool: 'when the user asks what logs exist, or before tailing one you're not sure is there.' This gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, missing the highest bar of the rubric.

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