Read bounded router-side logs

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: logs are filtered and redacted, and Mihomo logs are 'newly observed'—implying a checkpoint mechanism. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies output expectations, though it still leaves the exact redaction and 'newly observed' semantics somewhat vague.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

While the tool is simple and annotations cover safety, the description omits important behavioral details such as the meaning of 'bounded' (from the title), return format, and the semantics of 'newly observed'. With no output schema, this leaves moderate ambiguity. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter-level explanations. It mentions 'filtered' which loosely aligns with `contains`, but does not clarify duration, max_records, or the source enum's differences. The agent must infer parameter behavior from names and constraints alone, which is insufficient.

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 a specific action (Read) with a defined scope (filtered and redacted logs from OpenWrt, Nikki, or Mihomo). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are log-readers, and mentions filtering and redaction which add precision.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for reading router-side logs, but does not explicitly state scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for network inspection but no comparison is offered.

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