Get plugin logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class ('board'), which provides some context but does not elaborate on potential error conditions or rate limits.

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 very concise (two lines). It front-loads the purpose. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to describe what kind of logs are retrieved (e.g., runtime, audit) and whether any filtering is possible, leaving ambiguity.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage. The description does not explain the 'pluginId' parameter, its expected format, or its purpose. This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to correctly fill the parameter.

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 plugin logs' provides a clear verb and resource. The tool name similarly indicates retrieving logs for a specific plugin. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like pc_get_plugins_by_plugin_id_health or pc_get_plugins_by_plugin_id_jobs.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other plugin-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or filters.

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