get_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as limitations (e.g., log retention, device-specific constraints), side effects (none expected), or return behavior beyond what the output schema presumably covers. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds minimal behavioral transparency beyond them.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief main sentence followed by a bullet-point-style list for filter details. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids excessive fluff. It could be slightly more explicit about missing parameters, but the format is efficient and readable.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain three parameters (device, print_as, prefix_filter) and does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The output schema exists, so return types are likely covered, but the description still leaves significant gaps for a complex network device tool.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It explains topics (comma-separated), time_filter (RouterOS duration), message_filter (case-sensitive regex), and limit (newest N). However, it completely ignores device, print_as, and prefix_filter, leaving these ambiguous. The partial coverage is not sufficient to fully clarify all parameters, especially for a tool with seven inputs.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('logs from the MikroTik device') and mentions optional filters (topic, time, message). It is specific enough to understand the core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like get_logs_by_topic or get_logs_by_severity, which also deal with filtered log retrieval. Since there is no explicit distinction, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling log tools (e.g., search_logs, get_logs_by_topic, get_logs_by_severity, export_logs). It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or when alternatives should be used. This leaves the agent without clear decision support for tool selection.

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