log_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds that output is ordered oldest-first and that results are filtered to entries 'at or above a level', but it says nothing about pagination behavior for limit, truncation, or what skipped records look like.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the two most important behavioral facts (level threshold, oldest-first ordering) appended. Nothing is padded and nothing needs reordering.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description covers content type, filter direction, and ordering. The one real gap is the absence of any signal about limit/pagination semantics and how 'decoded events' differ from plain console messages.

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 83%, so the schema already documents log, t_from, t_to, contains, and min_level (including its level vocabulary). The description reinforces the level-threshold semantics of min_level but adds no new syntax or format detail, making a baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific resource pair (PX4 console messages and decoded events) plus scope conditions (level threshold, chronological order), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like scan_logs or topic_data, so 5 is not warranted.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as scan_logs or log_summary. The level filter and ordering are described, but nothing tells the agent under what circumstances this tool should be preferred over its siblings.

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