mcp_agent_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a concrete behavioral trait: the output is capped at the last 50 lines, so there is no pagination or full-log option. It omits whether the read requires permissions, where the log lives, and what happens if the log is empty or missing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, and the scope limit is included inline. Nothing is wasted and nothing is padded.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the core intent is covered, but the description does not resolve the only open question an agent has — the accepted form of the 'agent' identifier — nor the log's location or error behavior.

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 0% for the single 'agent' parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter identifies which agent's log to read, but gives no format guidance (name, ID, or alias), leaving the agent to guess a valid value.

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 ('Read'), resource ('server log file'), and an exact scope ('last 50 lines'), which no sibling covers — restart/upgrade/list are distinct operations. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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?

The 'last 50 lines' framing implies a diagnostic/troubleshooting use, but the description never states when to reach for this versus mcp_agent_restart or mcp_agent_upgrade, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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