List the logs this install has

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds value by explaining the dynamic, disk-read behavior and the example of a server-only session. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them, though it does not cover every possible edge case or performance implication.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information about what the tool does and why the result can vary, making it concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential dynamic behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it or interpret its purpose is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids any parameter talk, and since there is nothing to document, it fully satisfies this dimension.

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 lists logs and archive counts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by noting the result is read off disk rather than a constant, but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it misses the top mark.

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 gives contextual guidance about when the tool is appropriate (e.g., server-only sessions produce no client.log) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'logs' or 'log_watch'. The implied usage is clear, but exclusions and explicit alternatives are absent.

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