app_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: the 5000-line ring buffer capacity, the fact that only lines captured after attachment exist, the redaction policy for tokens/keys/PINs/certs, and that B0 traffic and keepalives are suppressed unless includeNoise. These are exactly the constraints an agent needs to interpret sparse or missing output.

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?

Front-loads the resource and capture window, then the polling pattern, then the noise caveat; each sentence carries distinct operational information. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant against readOnlyHint but costs almost nothing.

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 5-param, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers capture window, capacity, redaction, and filtering. The one soft gap is that it only implicitly signals that responses carry a lastSeq cursor and the line/seq shape the agent must parse to continue polling.

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 grep, limit, since, levels, and includeNoise are all already documented in the schema. The description reinforces since-as-polling-cursor and includeNoise noise control in workflow terms but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Read the CyberBrick app's renderer console,' and scopes which portion of it is available ('captured by this MCP server since it attached'). No sibling tool in the list returns console logs, so the resource is unambiguous against tools like device_status, cb_health, or flash_check.

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?

Explicitly describes the intended workflow: poll with since=<lastSeq> to follow long-running tasks, naming flash_config with hardwareMappings and its upgrade → send config → pairing sequence as the motivating case. It gives clear when-to-use context but names no exclusion or alternative log source (there is none in the sibling set), so no explicit when-not guidance.

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