lms_log_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without explaining side effects, output format, blocking behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a CLI tool, important traits like whether logs are printed to stdout, saved to a file, or require specific permissions are undisclosed.

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, information-dense sentence that gets straight to the point. It front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain what happens with the captured logs (e.g., displayed, saved) or how the output is delivered. Given the simplicity, the missing context on return behavior and potential side effects makes it only minimally complete.

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 documents the sole parameter 'duration_ms' with a clear description ('How long to capture logs in milliseconds'). The tool description adds only a vague qualifier 'brief duration,' which does not meaningfully expand on the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional param semantics are provided.

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's function: 'Capture a snapshot of current logs for a brief duration.' It specifies the resource (logs) and the action (capture snapshot), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lms_status or lms_ps that handle other aspects of system state.

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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. The description is purely definitional, offering no context on how to choose between this and sibling log-related commands.

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