list_webmin_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates logs are listed (non-destructive) but lacks details on ordering, time range, or pagination. The mention of 'recent actions' is vague, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description gives only a vague notion of output fields (user, module, action). It omits important details like timestamp, default limit, or ordering. The tool serves a simple purpose but leaves the agent guessing about the return format.

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%, and the description does not add meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides. The description mentions user/module/action details as log content, but the schema already describes the filter parameters and their purpose.

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 it lists Webmin action/audit logs, specifying the content (user, module, action details). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool is described for listing Webmin 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 implies usage for retrieving Webmin logs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Since no sibling tool overlaps in functionality, confusion is minimal, but explicit guidance on exclusions would improve it.

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