get_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the operation retrieves logs from a MikroTik device and that filters are optional, which is mildly useful but not extensive. It does not contradict annotations and aligns with the read-only nature, but provides little beyond schema and annotations.

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, focused sentence of about 12 words with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then specifies the optional filters. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and close sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, return behavior, or usage distinctions. While an output schema exists and annotations are good, the large parameter space and ambiguous sibling relationships make this description incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'topic, time, and message filters' (mapping to topics, time_filter, message_filter). It leaves 6 other parameters (limit, action, device, follow, print_as, prefix_filter) unexplained, and some like 'print_as' and 'action' need clarification. The description adds minimal value over the parameter names.

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 the resource 'logs from the MikroTik device', with a scope of optional topic, time, and message filters. This differentiates it from many siblings like get_logs_by_severity or get_logs_by_topic, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. It is a specific, clear 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many log-related siblings (search_logs, get_logs_by_topic, monitor_logs). It only implies that this tool offers multiple optional filters, but does not state exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving tool selection ambiguous.

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