synology_get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get system logs' and provides no context about log format, pagination, time range, or read-only guarantees. The count parameter is documented in the schema, but the description does not explain pagination limits or the nature of the returned data.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of filler. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with a well-documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what the returned logs contain, whether they are real-time or historical, or any filtering capabilities beyond count. Without an output schema, the agent must infer the return format.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described ('device_id' and 'count' with default). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('system logs'), and the target platform ('Synology NAS'). It distinguishes this from sibling Synology tools like synology_get_storage or synology_get_disks, and from log tools for other vendors like qnap_get_logs.

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 is implied by the name and description: use this when you need logs from a Synology NAS. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, how it compares to other log tools, or what type of logs (e.g., system vs. application) it retrieves.

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