get-logs-indexes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says it 'gets' configurations. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions required, rate limits, or whether the operation has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks transparency.

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 that is direct and to the point. It contains no unnecessary words or information, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does: retrieving log index configurations with retention and exclusion filters. It could mention the response format or possible constraints, but it is fairly complete for a simple get operation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% (trivial). According to the rule for zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns, but no parameter information is relevant.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'log index configurations including retention and exclusion filters', making the purpose obvious. However, the sibling tool 'get-log-indexes' exists and the description does not differentiate itself, which could cause confusion.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the very similar 'get-log-indexes' or other log-related tools like 'get-log-pipelines'. No context on prerequisites or appropriate usage scenarios is given.

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