get_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it returns 20 logs per page in most-recent-first order, supports pagination via a page parameter, and specifies default behavior (page 0 = most recent). However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which could be relevant for a logging 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details pagination behavior in two clear sentences. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—making it efficient and well-structured for an agent.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, behavior, and pagination. However, it lacks details on log format, error cases, or how it integrates with sibling tools, which could enhance completeness for an agent in this context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'page' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it repeats pagination details). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.

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's purpose: 'Get recent logs from Selenix (all types).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('logs'), and scope ('recent', 'all types'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_step_results' or 'get_command_info' that might also retrieve log-related data, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 paginated log retrieval with 'Use page parameter to paginate,' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_step_results' or other sibling tools. It offers basic context but lacks exclusions or clear alternatives.

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