diagnostic_signatures__logs__list

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds the HTTP method (GET), which is consistent with the read-only hint. However, it does not elaborate on any other behavioral traits (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits, or return format). Given the strong annotation coverage, the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that directly state the purpose and the API endpoint. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous information. The functional description is front-loaded, making it easy for the agent to quickly understand the tool's 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?

For a simple list tool with a well-described schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the parameters are documented. However, it lacks context about the nature of 'logs' (e.g., content, format) and the pagination behavior, though the schema covers pagination parameters. Given no output schema, a bit more context could help, but it is still reasonably complete.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters (id, limit, next_url). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the description does not compensate for any gaps, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states the action (List) and resource (logs belonging to a diagnostic signature), making the purpose crystal clear. It also includes the HTTP method and path, which adds specificity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, as it is the only tool scoped to diagnostic signature logs.

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 other list tools or diagnostic signature tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tools for related tasks. The usage context is purely implied by the tool name and description.

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