switch_show_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, but it only states a basic action. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special privileges, whether it clears the buffer, or what kind of output is returned. The agent lacks critical behavioral context for a log-related 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 extremely concise, using only seven words to convey the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. No wasted verbiage or redundant phrases are present.

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 description is minimal and lacks contextual completeness for a network device tool. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'log buffer' contains, how output is formatted, whether logs are filtered by severity, or whether the command affects the switch state. For an agent selecting and invoking the tool, this is insufficient beyond a basic name-level understanding.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (device_id and lines), achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters; it simply relies on the schema. No further semantic elaboration is provided.

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 specifies the action ('Show'), the resource ('log buffer'), and the scope ('on a switch'), distinguishing it from sibling switch_show_* tools like switch_show_interfaces or switch_show_vlans. It is a specific and unambiguous statement of what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which it should be preferred over similar switch show commands. The lack of any usage direction leaves the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name.

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