codex_get_diagnostic_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Read' implying it is read-only, but omits important details like whether data is redacted, if there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. No side effects or safety information are provided beyond the verb.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or parameter list) that would improve scannability given the tool's complexity.

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 (not shown), the description for a tool with 10 parameters and 0% schema descriptions is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how filters interact. The agent would need to infer too much.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'thread/turn/workflow filters' without explaining the 10 parameters such as 'source', 'severity', or 'limit'. The agent receives no help in understanding what each parameter controls.

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 ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('redacted MCP diagnostic log lines and MCP-owned app-server event audit entries') along with filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'codex_collect_diagnostics' which likely gathers or exports data.

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 usage for reading logs with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'codex_get_operation_status'), nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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