service_logs

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only/read-write, authentication requirements, or output format. It only covers timing behavior, leaving key aspects opaque.

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 relatively short (two sentences) but could be better structured. The purpose is not front-loaded; it begins with 'Kali Agent MCP tool: service_logs' followed by execution timing details, which is not the most intuitive organization.

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 (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover basic usage, output expectations, or differentiate from similar tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially explains five timing parameters but omits other important parameters like 'user', 'lines', 'since', 'priority', and even the required 'service' parameter. This leaves gaps in understanding parameter usage.

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 does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves service logs; it focuses on timing parameters instead. The name 'service_logs' hints at the purpose, but the lack of a clear 'Fetches logs for a service' statement makes it vague.

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 guidance on when to use different 'on_timeout' values (e.g., 'continue_background' for long work, 'kill' or 'return_partial' for bounded work). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_logs' or 'audit_log', leaving selection criteria unclear.

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