Get Request Logs

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: the difference between list and single-log responses, full bodies/headers, and the need for project context. However, it claims support for 'time range' filtering, but no such parameter exists in the input schema, which is a misleading behavioral statement.

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: purpose first, then filtering options, then the special logId case, then the prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information, and nothing is redundant.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main decision points: what the tool returns, when to use logId, and the project-context prerequisite. It does not describe the response shape beyond 'list' vs 'full bodies and headers', but the schema covers pagination and filter semantics, so the description is mostly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for logId, explaining that it returns full bodies and headers and that it is the parameter to use for wrong-rule diagnosis. It also clarifies the purpose of method/path/status filters, going slightly beyond raw schema descriptions. The unsupported 'time range' reference is a minor drawback.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('request logs from the mock server'), and the content ('recent incoming requests and matched rules'). It also clearly differentiates the list mode from the single-log mode via logId, which distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_audit_log or get_mock_rule_diagnostics.

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 gives explicit usage guidance for logId: use it to get one full log when a request matched the wrong rule. It also provides a prerequisite ('Requires project context (call set_context first)'). However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance stops short of full alternative routing.

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