Read capture logs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a behavioral detail beyond annotations: credential-shaped values are redacted. It also mentions optional modes and pagination, which are useful behavioral context.

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?

Two concise, well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and key features; the second adds a security-relevant behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the main functionality but lacks detail on output format, pagination mechanics, or how to distinguish this from sibling tools like list_capture_events. With no output schema and many related tools, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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 only 20% (only capture_path has a description). The description compensates by indirectly explaining errors_only (error-only mode), search (text search), and limit/offset (pagination). However, it does not explicitly detail parameter interactions or default behavior.

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 reads captured Nsight/application log messages, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_capture or analyze_capture, which target different resources.

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 implies usage for reading logs with options (error-only, search, pagination), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like list_capture_events or get_capture_logs could overlap, and no clear criteria are given.

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