Get Message Log

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that results are returned newest-first and enumerates the valid level values ('info', 'warning', 'critical', 'success', 'none'). This gives the agent meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotation alone.

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 short sentences front-load the core purpose, immediately follow with filter options, and close with ordering behavior. Every clause contributes value with no wasted wording.

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?

With a readOnlyHint, an output schema, and only three optional parameters, the description covers the essential behaviors: what is retrieved, how to filter, valid level values, and result ordering. The only minor gap is the lack of any explanation of the 'limit' parameter's semantics or interaction with the other filters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for 'level' and 'tag' by listing valid values and giving an example. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning and default behavior undocumented outside the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('QGIS message log entries'), and further clarifies the scope with filtering by level/tag. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, none of which target message log access.

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 makes clear this tool is for retrieving message log entries and describes the available filters. It does not explicitly name an alternative or a when-not-to-use case, but no sibling tool obviously overlaps with this function.

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