Read extender log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: extenders are auto-discovered and an omitted extender_ip fans out to all active extenders. No return format or pagination details, but solid for a read tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the discovery and default-scope behavior. No filler, though the final sentence partially duplicates the schema's extender_ip default.

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 zero-required-param, read-only tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, discovery, and default scope. Nothing critical is missing, though the absence of output/format expectations is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so lines, filter, and extender_ip are already documented in the schema. The description's note that omitting extender_ip fetches from all extenders largely restates the schema's own 'default: all extenders' text, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get system log from mesh extender(s)'), which scopes it to extenders and distinguishes it from the generic get_log/get_log_by_device siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Explains the auto-discovery behavior and that omitting extender_ip fetches all extenders, which is useful context for calling it. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_log, get_log_by_device, or dump_log, leaving the sibling-routing decision to inference.

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