List application logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most consequential behavioral trait: results come from a bounded rolling buffer rather than full history. It omits other traits the agent would want — read-only nature (only implied by 'List'), rate/volume limits, and how the 'auto' target fallback behaves — but the buffer caveat is the key gotcha and it is stated plainly.

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 sentences with zero filler; the scope limitation is front-loaded and the alternative is appended as the resolution. Nothing redundant with the name or title.

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 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential conceptual gap (live tail vs. archive) but says nothing about output shape, pagination across offset/limit, or the behavior of the auto target fallback and includeErrors flag. Adequate, though an agent still infers a fair amount from the schema alone.

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 100% across all 14 parameters, so the schema already explains limit, offset, target, time filters, environment resolution, and the rest. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List the latest Runtime Manager logs for a Mule application') and immediately bounds what 'logs' means here. It also names the sibling it is not (anypoint_search_archived_logs), so an agent can distinguish it from anypoint_get_app_logs_for_analysis and the archived-log tool without opening 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?

Explicitly defines the operating window ('live tail only — a small rolling buffer') and states the exclusion condition plus the named alternative: 'For anything older than the buffer, use anypoint_search_archived_logs.' That is a direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing rule.

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