get_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add valuable behavioral context by disclosing that results include an error/warning summary report, which is not in the schema. However, it says nothing about ordering, retention window for 'recent', truncation behavior, or that the call is a non-mutating read.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and follow-up with when to use it; every sentence carries information. Minor waste in the slightly generic 'understand what FSB has been doing' phrasing, and 'FSB' is an unexplained acronym.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the retrieval modes and hints at the return content (error/warning summary), which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only ranking/retention specifics and sibling disambiguation, neither of which is essential here.

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%: the schema already documents 'count' (default 50, max 200, ignored when sessionId is provided) and 'sessionId' (filter to one session). The description only restates the session-scoping idea and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (get automation logs) and names both retrieval modes: recent logs or logs for a specific session. It also discloses the payload ('error/warning summary report'), so the agent knows what it gets. It stops short of differentiating itself from adjacent siblings like get_session_replay or get_session_detail.

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?

'Use to debug issues or understand what FSB has been doing' gives a clear purpose context for when to reach for this tool. There are no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g., when to prefer get_session_detail or replay_session instead), so it lands at clear-context-without-routing rather than 5.

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