get_network_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'network activity logs' include, whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or how the logs are formatted/returned. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with just three words, front-loading the key action and resource. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'network activity logs' entail, how they are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, more context is needed to fully understand its use and output.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable, and it implies the tool retrieves logs without requiring inputs, which is clear enough for a baseline score.

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 'Get network activity logs' clearly states the action (get) and resource (network activity logs), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_network_errors' or other logging tools like 'get_console_logs', leaving room for ambiguity about what specific logs are retrieved.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_network_errors' and 'get_console_logs', the description lacks context on whether this retrieves all network logs, specific types, or how it differs from other logging tools, offering no usage instructions.

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