get_context_logs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds the concept of 'around an anchor Unix timestamp' without further behavioral details. There is no mention of log ordering, limits, or response format, but given the annotation, the baseline is met.

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 sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it omits essential parameter information that is penalized in other dimensions.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations only indicating read-only, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how the anchor timestamp is passed, what the response looks like, or any edge cases, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

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 input schema has zero properties, yet the description refers to an 'anchor Unix timestamp' that is not represented in the schema. This is a significant disconnect: the description implies a parameter that does not exist, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the timestamp.

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 ('Get logs') and the key concept ('around an anchor Unix timestamp'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_logs and check_connection. However, it lacks clarity on how the anchor timestamp is provided, which slightly detracts from full clarity.

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 sibling tool names suggest some context, but the description does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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