sprut_get_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get recent' implies a safe read and a recency window, but nothing is said about ordering, pagination, whether logs are truncated, retention limits, or auth/permission requirements.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The Args section largely restates what the schema already exposes, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. With only two optional params and no annotations, the definition is close to adequate, but the absence of any behavioral or usage context leaves an agent under-informed about filtering and result behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it does document both params: count (entries to retrieve, default 50) and level (filter by level, with examples ERROR/WARN/INFO). The level parameter has no enum in the schema and the description gives only illustrative values, so the semantics of arbitrary strings remain unclear.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent system and driver logs from SprutHub,' which is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling tool or explain the scope of the logs (e.g. system vs driver only, time window).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the 'recent logs' phrasing; an agent gets no help deciding between this and, say, sprut_get_history or sprut_get_summary.

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