log_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Retrieve log entries' and 'Covers any GET', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response details. This is insufficient for a generic log retrieval tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by API endpoint coverage. It is concise and to the point, but could benefit from more structured information such as usage context or parameter hints.

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 presence of an output schema and the generic nature of the tool, the description sufficiently covers the sources and the API pattern. However, it omits any mention of the verstatility of the log_path parameter to retrieve different log types, which is implied by the siblings. Still, it is fairly complete for its scope.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 the tool retrieves log entries from specific sources (disk, memory, FortiAnalyzer, FortiCloud) and covers any GET on /api/v2/log/{log_path}. This provides a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling log tools like log_app_ctrl or log_traffic_forward, which are more specific log-type tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this generic log retrieval tool versus the more specific log tools among siblings. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent without decision context.

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