Get Logs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the log types that are already encoded in the file_name enum, so it provides little extra transparency about response shape, filtering behavior, or limits.

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 sentence with no filler: it front-loads the action and resource, then adds the three log types compactly. Every word contributes meaning, and nothing is repeated from the tool name or title.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and a self-describing schema, this is adequate but not complete. With no output schema present, the description could usefully state what the returned log data looks like, and it leaves the semantics of from/to filters and lines implicit rather than explicit.

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 67%; env_id, to, from, and search have schema descriptions, while lines and file_name are less documented. The description helps by mapping 'error, access, or Kinsta cache performance' to the file_name enum values, but it does not clarify date/time formats or how the line limit behaves, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('logs'), and the exact scope ('for an environment'). It also enumerates the three log types available ('error, access, or Kinsta cache performance logs'), which clearly distinguishes it from the many other environment and analytics tools in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for retrieving environment logs, but the description never states when to prefer it or what it is not for. There is no direct alternative log tool among the siblings, so there is no misleading guidance, but the 'when vs. alternatives' information is absent.

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