Get Site Logs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, openWorld. The description adds transparency by naming required scope (server:manage-logs) and clarifying its only write power (clearing logs). No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: first covers purpose and options, second adds usage guidance and permission context. No wasted words, front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, log types, and permissions adequately for selection. Missing output format details (e.g., streaming vs lines), but acceptable for a simple tail tool. Output schema not present, so not required.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema (e.g., log types are listed but schema already has enum). The usage hint ('first place to look') is useful but not parameter-specific.

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 it tails site logs (application or Nginx access/error), directly linked to troubleshooting errors. It distinguishes well from sibling tools focused on certificates, servers, sites, etc.

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 marks this as the first place to check for site errors, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but sibling tool list makes context clear.

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