get_logs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states that logs are retrieved, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential truncation, or impact on server state. For a simple retrieval tool, this is a notable omission.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides typical usage scenarios. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the primary use cases for debugging. Could briefly mention that logs are from the running server, but it's implied.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('max_lines' default and range, 'keyword' example). 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 tool name 'get_logs' and description 'Get ComfyUI server runtime logs' clearly state the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_system_stats' or 'get_history' by focusing specifically on runtime logs. The debugging context is helpful.

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 provides clear use cases: 'debugging execution errors, model loading issues, missing nodes, and Python tracebacks'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the specific purpose implies appropriate usage. It's concise and actionable.

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