Recent Log Entries

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: every returned entry resolves host/service names at the cost of one extra API request per entry. It also specifies newest-first ordering. This is exactly the kind of cost and side-effect context an agent needs; no contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler: the first states the resource, window, and ordering; the second states the cost caveat. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list operation, the description covers what is returned, the time window, ordering, and an important performance cost. The output schema and annotations handle the remaining return-value and safety details, so nothing critical 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 input schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the description does not need to carry the parameter documentation burden. It reinforces the meaning of `hours` but adds no semantics beyond 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?

The description identifies the resource ('host and service alert log entries'), the lookback window, and ordering, which makes the tool's purpose clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' and it does not directly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling list tools such as list_host_checks or list_service_state_changes. The temporal window implies use for recent history, but no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria are given.

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