get_core_logs

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It describes reading from Supervisor journal, fallback to error log, and parameter behaviors like truncate_traces. No contradictions, and it gives sufficient detail for safe invocation.

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 concise with no wasted words: one line for purpose, a structured Args list, a usage tip, and two examples. Information is front-loaded, making it easy for an AI to scan.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameters, usage guidelines, and examples. While return format is not detailed, it's a log retrieval tool; the description provides enough context for correct use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: limit range (1-200), level values, integration example, pattern substring matching, since_minutes context, lines default, and truncate_traces default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 gets Home Assistant core logs from the Supervisor journal with fallback to error log. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'Home Assistant core logs' make the purpose unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from sibling 'get_error_log' by mentioning fallback and all levels.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use set_log_level to enable DEBUG before reading debug logs; reset to WARNING after' provides a clear prerequisite. Examples show typical usage patterns, helping the agent understand appropriate invocation.

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