Service Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers most behavioral expectations. The description adds that it 'returns actual log text' and implies the tool is safe for repeated use (non-destructive). However, it does not elaborate on any edge cases or limitations beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose. The first sentence states the primary function with examples; the second provides usage guidance with an alternative. No superfluous language.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining the format of the returned log lines. It only says 'returns actual log text', which is vague. It could mention common fields like timestamp, level, message. Additionally, there is no mention of result limits or pagination, which are common for log retrieval. However, given the large number of sibling tools, the description adequately focuses on the key differentiator.

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 100% coverage, providing full descriptions for both parameters. The description adds example values for service ('nginx', 'postgres') which reinforces meaning but does not introduce new semantics. The since parameter format is already detailed in the schema, so no additional value is added.

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 verb (get/recent log lines), resource (specific service), and provides concrete examples ('nginx', 'postgres'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like errors_by_service, which handles counts across all services.

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 explicitly advises to use errors_by_service first for error counts, then drill into a specific service with this tool. It provides use case examples ('show me the errors/logs from X'). The guidance is clear but could be more exhaustive about alternatives.

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