list_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does state that the action is a listing operation on log and crash-report files, which implies a read-only behavior, but it does not describe the return format, whether a current instance must be selected, or any error behavior. This is adequate but has gaps.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The action, object, and scope are all front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the file categories and the scope. It does not explicitly state the return shape, but 'list' strongly implies a list of files, and there is no output schema to demand more detail.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, this is scored as 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') with a specific resource ('log and crash-report files') and scopes it to the current instance. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_log and diagnose, so an agent can identify the operation without needing to inspect schemas.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use list_logs versus read_log, diagnose, or other siblings. The usage context is only implicit in the verb 'list', and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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