get_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and excels: it discloses 'Never makes an HTTP call to OctoBot and never raises,' states the response is 'static, instant... not a failure,' and even notes that 'ctx is accepted only for interface consistency... never read.' This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence front-loads the stub status and root cause, the second explains behavior precisely, and the third gives the actionable alternative. No filler, no repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema stub, the description covers everything an agent needs: what happens when called, what does not happen, and which sibling tool to use instead. The ADR-0006 reference adds provenance. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are no schema parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful extra context by explaining the otherwise invisible 'ctx' parameter: it is accepted only for interface consistency and is never read. This goes beyond the empty schema.

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 explicitly identifies this as a 'Tier C stub' that exists because 'structured/filterable log listing has no JSON API in OctoBot.' It clearly states what the tool does—returns a static response explaining the gap—rather than pretending to fetch logs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_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 description provides direct routing guidance: 'Use export_logs() instead to retrieve OctoBot's full log history as a downloadable zip archive.' This names the alternative and the condition selecting it, leaving no ambiguity about when this stub is appropriate.

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