get_logs

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 confirms this is a read/retrieval operation on a project log directory, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, default behavior with zero filters, or volume limits under the limit parameter. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be a fully useful definition.

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 seven-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: default result ordering, behavior when all filters are omitted, and result set size are unstated. The rich schema partially compensates, but the description is only minimally sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including enums and timestamps. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction details (e.g., level-as-minimum, since/until interaction) beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve/filter) and resource (log entries from the project log directory), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like clear_logs. No sibling is explicitly named, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'retrieve and filter' and the schema params, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use context, no exclusions, and never mentions the nearby alternative clear_logs.

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