read_editor_logs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about recency, edit-time scope, and support for filters/pagination, but it does not disclose default recency windows, ordering behavior, or how pagination behaves when no parameters are supplied.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and then names the key capabilities.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it only says 'logs' without specifying response shape or fields. It also omits default behavior when no parameters are provided and does not explain the search filter's semantics. Given five optional parameters, this leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 only 20% (only 'since' is documented). The description mentions 'filters and pagination' but does not clarify which parameters map to those concepts, what 'search' targets, or default limits. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not sufficiently compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb ('Read'), the resource ('edit-time Editor console logs'), and the scope ('recent'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_runtime_logs by explicitly calling out 'edit-time Editor' logs.

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 phrase 'edit-time Editor console logs' implies when this tool is appropriate, and the presence of read_runtime_logs suggests the alternative. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the runtime-log sibling, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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