elog_get_recent_entries

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns {"total": int, "entries": [...]}'), the ordering ('newest first'), and references sibling behavior ('excerpts like elog_search'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not address read-only guarantees, pagination limits, or error conditions, leaving some room for improvement.

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 and well-structured. It leads with the one-sentence purpose, then lists parameters in a clear 'Args:' block, and ends with the return type. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes useful information. The most critical info (what it does) 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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no enums, output schema exists), the description is complete. It states the purpose, parameter meanings, and the return shape, and references sibling behavior for the excerpt format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return details further, and nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It clearly defines both parameters: 'Name of the logbook to read' for logbook and 'Number of recent entries to return' for count. This provides semantics that the schema omits, fully explaining the purpose of each parameter.

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 clear action verb and resource: 'Fetch the newest entries of a logbook, newest first.' It identifies the resource (logbook entries) and the ordering (newest first), which distinguishes it from siblings like elog_search (searches by criteria) and elog_get_entry (single entry).

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 purpose implies usage ('when you want recent entries'), but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool. It does not name elog_search or elog_get_entry as alternatives, nor does it describe when they would be more appropriate. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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