get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: results are ordered newest-first, and FortiGate-VMs without a log disk hold logs only in memory, lost on reboot. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then a compact type breakdown, then the operational caveat. Every sentence carries information and none repeats the schema.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies ordering, log-type semantics, and the memory-volatility caveat. It leaves the shape of returned rows and any permission requirements unstated, but the fields/rows parameters imply row-level output.

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, but the description goes further by explaining what several log_type values actually contain (traffic/forward = sessions through policies with app ID; app-ctrl = per-connection app and, with cert inspection, HTTPS hostname), adding semantics beyond the schema's flat enumeration.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read FortiGate logs') plus a scoping trait ('newest first'), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_sessions, get_top_traffic and get_policy_stats that surface derived rather than raw log data.

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 'Useful types' list implicitly guides which log_type to pick and what each contains, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. list_sessions for live session state vs. get_logs for historical records).

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