Get Im Log

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds nothing beyond it: no scope, time window, retention, or volume context for the log. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes zero additional behavioral information.

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?

A single compact phrase with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified rather than wasteful, but nothing in the sentence fails to earn its place.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the essentials are present, but the description is silent on scope (e.g., whether a time range applies, what 'IM' encompasses). Minimum viable but with a clear gap for a log whose scope matters.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document and the 4 baseline applies. The description appropriately omits parameter discussion rather than inventing it.

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 (retrieve IM online/offline records), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many other log-retrieval siblings (get_auth_log, get_terminal_log, get_system_event_log, etc.), so an agent has no stated basis for choosing this one over them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the sizable log-tool family. The description only asserts what the tool returns, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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