Read bounded Micro logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the bounded-window behavior ('bounded recent log window'), which is a behavioral trait not expressed in the structured data. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 11-word sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and packs resource, bound, and scope into minimal words. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of the title beyond what is useful.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, read-only, annotated as safe, with an output schema present, so return values need not be described). The description is adequate for basic invocation but leaves a meaningful gap: the 'since' parameter's semantics and the meaning of 'bounded' with respect to log size or time limits are not clarified, which an agent may need to know to use the tool correctly.

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 only 50%: 'path' has a prose description, but 'since' has no description field—only a default of '30m' and a pattern '^\d+[mhd]$' that leave the unit semantics and meaning (time range before now) to inference. The tool description adds no parameter explanation whatsoever, so it does not compensate for the gap on the undocumented 'since' parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('logs'), and a scope ('bounded recent log window for the linked project'). It is distinct from siblings like micro_status or micro_dev_status because 'logs' is unambiguous as a resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those read-adjacent siblings.

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 context is implied but not explicit: 'bounded recent log window' suggests this tool is for retrieving recent logs rather than full history, and the sibling list contains many status/monitoring tools an agent might confuse it with. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do when older logs are needed.

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