logs_eventlog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. However, it adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema provide (e.g., pagination behavior or result ordering). Adequate but minimal.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence, 9 words). No wasted words, but arguably too terse for a tool with 6 parameters. However, the schema carries the parameter details, so the brevity is acceptable.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description lacks context about the event logs themselves (e.g., what information they contain, how they differ from other logs). It also doesn't mention that hostname is required, though schema indicates it. Incomplete for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters (pagination, timestamp filters, sort order). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 event logs for a device from LibreNMS. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('event logs for a device'), and distinguishes it from sibling log tools like logs_alertlog, logs_syslog, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other log-related tools (e.g., logs_alertlog, logs_authlog). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for when to prefer this tool.

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