get_logs

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail about how it locates logs (log files or .log), but says nothing about which source is read by default or how many lines are returned, though the output schema covers return shape.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 values need not be described, but for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description is thin: the two non-required parameters and the selection logic between file logs and stdout are left unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It only loosely gestures at 'project' (mapping to project_path) and says nothing about 'lines' or 'source', which defaults to 'stdout' and sits oddly against the 'log files or .log' framing.

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+resource ('Read recent log content from project') and adds a hint about its resolution strategy ('looks for log files or .log'). An agent can distinguish it as a log-oriented reader, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling read_file.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not explain when to prefer this over read_file, search_files, or run_command, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name alone.

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