log_filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and 'read-only' is a useful behavioral disclosure. However, it omits any detail about output format, log contents, or whether the log is cleared or truncated, so the transparency is minimal.

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 short, front-loaded fragment with no wasted words: 'IP filter log (read-only)'. It is concise, though it sacrifices a clear verb and supporting context.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully prepare an agent. It does not explain what the log contains, how it compares to other log tools, or what the expected return value looks like.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully documented by virtue of being empty. A score of 4 is the baseline for a no-parameter tool, and the description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none to clarify.

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 identifies a resource, 'IP filter log', and notes it is read-only, but it never states an explicit action like 'view' or 'show'. The phrase largely restates the tool name and provides no differentiation from siblings such as log_tail or ipf_view.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many log-related siblings like log_tail, log_call, log_wan, or ipf_view. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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