get_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the 500-entry ring buffer with oldest entries dropping off. It also lists log levels, which helps the agent know what types of entries may appear. However, it does not mention whether the buffer is persistent in memory, whether any side effects occur on read, or authentication requirements—minor gaps given the simplicity.

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 sentences, each conveying necessary information: purpose, offset usage, and buffer/log-level details. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless (or single optional parameter) log retrieval tool, the description is quite complete. It explains the parameter semantics, the log levels, and the buffer limit. With no output schema, it could have described the structure of returned entries, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool does and how to call it.

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 already provides a clear description for the 'since' parameter ('Return entries after this offset index') with a default of 0, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only a minor clarification ('use 0 for all'), which is redundant given the schema's default. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Get debug log entries') and a clear resource (logs). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, which focus on workers, chains, groups, and settings. The additional details about offset and log levels reinforce the purpose.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving debug logs and explains the offset behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is clear enough from context, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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