job_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions, leaving the agent with no insight into side effects or prerequisites.

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 extremely short but fails to provide necessary information. It is under-specified rather than concise, as it does not earn its place with useful content.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, sibling tools, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the output schema contains, nor does it compensate for missing annotations or parameter documentation.

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%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the five parameters. The schema lists parameters like job_id, offset, stream, max_bytes, and tail_lines, but the description does not explain their purpose or expected values.

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 'Kali Agent MCP tool: job_logs' is a tautology that merely repeats the tool name. It fails to state that the tool retrieves logs for a specific job, and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like job_status or job_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as job_status, job_list, or job_wait. The description offers no context for appropriate usage.

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