get_node_logs

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

Annotations already declare this as readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds some context by specifying 'log configuration' rather than log content, but it does not describe response shape, authorization needs, or other behavioral details.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient for a simple tool, though it is very terse and leaves some context to be inferred.

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 operation with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify what the returned log configuration looks like or how it relates to other node/topic log-related tools.

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 100%, with cluster and nodeId both documented in the schema itself. The description provides no additional parameter-level meaning, so it appropriately relies on 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 'Get log configuration for a node' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource, and it names the target as configuration rather than log content. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_node_configs and get_topic_logs, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself among them.

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 such as get_node_configs or get_topic_logs. The description only states what it does, not the conditions or context that should lead an agent to invoke it.

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