get_logs

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It states 'get recent logs' implying read-only but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Does not explain what 'recent' means or the format of the logs, lacking essential behavioral details.

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?

Two short, direct sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded ('Get recent logs'). Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, how to interpret logs, or how this tool relates to other log tools. For a debugging tool, more context is necessary.

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%, meaning all four parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra value is provided.

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?

Clearly states 'Get recent logs from macOS system' specifying the resource (logs) and action (get). Differentiates from device/simulator log tools by mentioning 'macOS system', but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like search_logs or stream_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?

Says 'Use for debugging macOS apps', providing a usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like search_logs or stream_logs, which is needed given the number of sibling log tools.

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