get_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only discloses a maximum of 20 rows, but omits other behaviors like read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior (despite having offset parameter). The description is minimally transparent.

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 (two sentences), front-loads the verb and resource, and avoids fluff. However, it could be better structured to clearly list log types and constraints. Overall, it earns its place without being verbose.

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 complexity of 18 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how parameters interact, or error conditions. The schema covers parameter details but lacks overall context, making it insufficient for an AI agent.

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 67%, so many parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions log_type. With high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for uncovered parameters.

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 tool queries ServiceNow logs and lists log types (system/journal/transaction/background). It specifies the resource and action, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like sn_query or sn_aggregate, which could also query log data. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 vs alternatives. It mentions a max row limit, but does not explain contexts (e.g., real-time vs historical) or when not to use it. No explicit when/when-not information is given.

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