Логи действий над сервером

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a GET request to retrieve logs, implying a safe read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The examples (creation, reboots) add some context but not comprehensive behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence that leads with the core purpose, followed by the endpoint. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential function and endpoint, but it lacks details on the structure of returned logs, pagination, or error handling. It also does not offer guidance on when it is preferable to use this tool over siblings, which leaves gaps for an 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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter (server_id) with a description 'ID сервера', giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, leaving the baseline at 3.

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 retrieves the history of operations on a server, with concrete examples (creation, reboots) and the API endpoint GET /api/v1/servers/{id}/logs. This distinct function is well differentiated from sibling tools like get_server or server_power, which focus on current state or power management.

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 implies usage for viewing server operation history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or name alternative tools. The context is clear but not prescriptive.

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