logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden and delivers very little. 'Bounded' hints at a limit but never states the default for 'tail', how pagination via 'cursor' behaves, whether queries are read-only, or what permissions are needed. The only useful signal is that output is 'normalized'.

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 short sentence with no filler and no buried lede. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than precision.

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?

This is a nine-parameter query tool with an output schema, so return values needn't be described, but the description omits pagination, runtime/selector targeting, source filtering, and the meaning of the run/runs pair. An agent cannot confidently compose a call from this description alone.

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?

With 9 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not. It never explains runs vs run, tail, since, cursor, sources, selectors, or with_actions, so six parameters remain opaque across both schema and prose.

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 has a specific verb and resource ('Query ... logs') and scopes it to 'service and action logs', which is more than a tautology. However, the qualifiers 'bounded' and 'normalized' are undefined jargon and it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling 'logs_clear' or from 'action_result', leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. a runtime must exist), and no mention of alternatives. 'logs_clear' sits directly in the sibling list and is the obvious disambiguation target, but the description is silent on it.

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