codex_get_diagnostic_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that logs are redacted and that raw payload mode remains 'secret-redacted', but does not address destructive behavior, authentication, rate limits, or idempotency. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 long, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks sufficient detail for a tool with 10 parameters and no parameter descriptions. It does not explain the structure of the output, the effect of filters, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use 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 description mentions 'filters' and 'raw payload mode' but does not explain any of the 10 parameters individually. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only hints at the purpose without detailing source, severity, time filters, or other inputs.

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 reads redacted diagnostic logs and app-server audit entries with filters, specifying the verb 'Read' and the target resources. It differentiates from siblings like codex_collect_diagnostics by emphasizing targeted troubleshooting rather than normal polling.

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 explicitly says 'Use this only for targeted troubleshooting, not normal polling,' providing clear usage context. It also explains that raw payload mode is for local audit, but does not name alternative tools for polling, which prevents a score of 5.

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