Read log by device

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: device identity expansion and the absence of a time window. It does not cover return ordering or detailed output shape, but the annotations lower the burden and the added behavioral context is strong.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. The second sentence directly addresses the main alternative and exclusion. No wasted text.

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-only log retrieval tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It clarifies the device identity expansion behavior and explicitly redirects time-windowed log queries to get_log.

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. The description adds real semantic value for the required device parameter by explaining that a MAC, IP, or name is expanded to all known MACs, IPs, and names for that device. It adds no extra meaning for the lines parameter beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve router log lines for one device. It also explains the key scope behavior, expanding the given MAC, IP, or name to all known identities for that device, which distinguishes it from a generic log retrieval tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: no time window, and for the whole log or since/until use get_log. This gives clear routing guidance without ambiguity.

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