im_get_application_logs

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'recent' logs but does not specify time window, log format, or whether the call is read-only. As a fetch operation, it is likely non-destructive, but details are lacking.

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 focused sentence with examples, no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and key use case.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could describe the return format or structure. It also does not contextualize the three parameters or their defaults. The description is adequate but incomplete for a debugging tool.

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 67% (two parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the 'lines' parameter or clarify enum values. Baseline score 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 it fetches recent application logs for debugging, specifying example log types (errors, matching engine events, API call traces). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on candidates, jobs, claims, 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?

The description implies use for debugging but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance. Given distinct siblings, the purpose is clear, but usage boundaries are implicit.

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