get_installation_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' (a read operation) but does not mention whether the tool reads from a file, what happens if the directory is invalid, whether it follows a tail/streaming model, or any side effects. The description is too thin.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. No fluff.

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 log retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the main parameters and return concept. However, it lacks details on error handling, behavior when lines exceeds available log size, or path format expectations. Given no annotations, more context would be helpful, but it is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing args. 'install_dir: Installation directory' adds some meaning but is vague and could be misinterpreted (path to installer vs logs). 'lines: Number of recent lines to retrieve' is clear. The default value is in the schema, but the description repeats it.

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 'Get recent installation log entries' clearly specifies the verb (get) and resource (installation log entries), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_installation_status and configuration validation tools. The purpose is immediately understandable and specific.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose: one would use this tool when they need recent installation logs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., installer must be run first). No exclusions are provided.

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