get_request_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable read operations. The description adds valuable context beyond this by mentioning 'captured' logs and the verification purpose, which helps the agent understand the tool's role in mock server testing. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose and key filtering options, and the second provides clear usage guidance. It's front-loaded with essential information and efficiently structured.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, filtering, and usage context. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' parameters) or the 'unmatchedOnly' feature's near-miss analysis, which could be helpful for agent understanding.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions filtering by 'method, path, mock ID, or protocol,' which aligns with parameters like 'method,' 'pathPrefix,' 'mockId,' and 'protocol,' but doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve captured request/response logs') and resources ('logs'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its filtering capabilities. It explicitly mentions verifying expected API calls to the mock server, which differentiates it from tools like 'clear_request_logs' or 'get_mock_invocations'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'to verify that expected API calls were made to the mock server.' This directly addresses the tool's primary use case and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'get_mock_invocations' or 'verify_mock', which might serve different verification purposes.

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