Read router log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral context about time-window filtering and accepted time formats, but says nothing about default line counts, output ordering, or truncation 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the one non-obvious detail (time-window formats). No filler.

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 read-only, four-optional-parameter log tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the trickiest parameter formats. The remaining gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling log tools, which is more a usage-guideline issue than a completeness one.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning by giving concrete accepted formats for since/until ('HH:MM', 'HH:MM:SS', 'Jul 24 08:00') that the schema does not provide. It leaves the 'filter' and 'lines' semantics to the schema, which is adequate.

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 entries with timestamps'), which is clear enough to act on. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings get_log_by_device, get_extender_log, and dump_log, leaving the agent to guess which log tool to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the other log-retrieval siblings. The description implies a general-purpose log read, but with dump_log and get_log_by_device present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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