show_logs_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return format (timestamped log entries in a Prefab card) but does not disclose behaviors like filter handling or potential volume limits. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured, opening with a clear purpose, then a return format section, and a practical example. It uses headings and a code block effectively, with no wasted words.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return format, but omits the meaning of 'level_filter' and any pagination/limitation behaviors. It is largely sufficient for basic use but incomplete for advanced cases. Sibling differentiation is also 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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'limit' in the example without explaining its semantics, and 'level_filter' is entirely absent. The defaults in the schema provide some info, but the description adds little value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 'Show recent log entries' with a specific output format (scrollable Prefab card), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'blender_logs', but the tool name and phrasing are sufficiently specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools. The example shows how to call it but does not contextualize when it should be preferred.

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