get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses matching semantics for q and the timestamp units for since/until, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result ordering, the default limit of 200, truncation behavior, or whether the call is read-only and cheap.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the most decision-relevant detail (what is searched) comes first. It is slightly too terse for a six-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits result shape, ordering, pagination/limit semantics, and what replica scoping means. An agent could call it, but could not predict what it gets back or how to narrow large result sets.

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 coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates for the two weakest fields by defining q as a case-insensitive substring and giving epoch-millisecond units for since/until. It still leaves limit and replica undefined in both places, so it does not fully close the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search a service's logs), which is enough to separate it from siblings like audit_log or metrics. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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 on when to use this versus audit_log or metrics, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the verb.

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