get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the in-memory buffer nature, the 500-entry cap, newest-first ordering, and filter capabilities. While it doesn't mention side effects or permissions, it is a read-only operation and the details provided offer sufficient transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence gives the core functionality, the second explains ordering/filtering, and the third provides practical use cases. No wasted words.

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?

With three optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return order and buffer limits, but could say a bit more about the structure of each log entry. Still, it provides enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope and purpose.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description confirms filtering by level or tool name, matching the schema, but does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('server log entries from the in-memory buffer'), and specific constraints (last 500 entries, newest-first). It distinguishes this tool from its web-scraping siblings by focusing on server logs, a unique function.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool ('reviewing roundtable notification streams, debugging tool calls, capturing logs...'). No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the use cases are specific and helpful.

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