Get Message Log

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, signaling the tool is safe. The description adds that results are 'returned newest first', which is useful but not critical for behavioral understanding. No additional disclosures are needed given the annotation coverage.

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 concise: two sentences covering purpose, filtering, and ordering. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

While the output schema exists (reducing need for return value details), the description fails to mention the 'limit' parameter or the default behavior when filters are null. This is a noticeable omission for a tool with only three parameters, detracting from completeness.

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 explain all parameters. It explains 'level' (with examples) and 'tag', but completely omits the 'limit' parameter. This is a significant gap, leaving the agent unaware of how to control the number of results.

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 clearly states 'Get QGIS message log entries' - a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on message logs, which no other tool handles. The filtering and sorting details further clarify its purpose.

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 context on filtering by level and tag, helping the agent decide when to use the tool. It implies usage for retrieving specific log entries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but no close sibling tools exist to necessitate that.

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