get_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and takes no action, which is important behavioral disclosure. It also describes the content of the returned entries, covering the key behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 three crisp sentences: what it returns, when to use it, and its safety profile. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and every sentence adds value.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return content, use cases, and non-mutating behavior. It could specify output limits or ordering, but nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that logs come from 'the last `since` seconds', giving clear meaning to the only parameter. It does not state the default value, but that is already present in the 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 clearly states the tool returns recent NINA application log entries with source and timestamp details, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_events, but the resource is specific enough to avoid most ambiguity.

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 names concrete diagnostic use cases: sequence failures, equipment communication problems, and unexpected behavior. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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