get_qvs_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the types of events returned, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or pagination semantics beyond the parameter defaults. Still, as a log retrieval tool, the behavior is largely predictable.

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 concise: a purpose sentence, a content example sentence, and a clear arg list. Every sentence contributes, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 that the tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It could mention default pagination behavior or response ordering, but the existing content is sufficient for this straightforward log retrieval tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining both parameters ('limit' as number of entries with default 50, 'page' as pagination page with default 1), adding meaning that the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get Virtualization Station event and audit logs') and lists concrete examples of log content (VM starts, stops, resets, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools focused on VM management.

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 context is clear: this is the go-to tool for retrieving event and audit logs. There is no explicit mention of alternatives, but none of the sibling tools perform log retrieval, so the usage context is unambiguous.

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