get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that message text and payloads are intentionally excluded for confidentiality, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention ordering, scope (e.g., all logs or current app), or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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, no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds crucial context about exclusions. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what fields are returned and why message text is excluded. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., logs for the current app or workspace) or any sorting/ordering, which would improve completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter ('limit'), and the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter's meaning and effect, but it fails to do so. The default value and integer type are in the schema but not enriched by the description.

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 that the tool returns log/error metadata including severity, category, timestamp, and source name/type. It also explicitly states what is excluded (message text/payloads) and why, providing a precise purpose that distinguishes it from siblings that return full data or other objects.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_state_summary' or 'list_queries'. It implies that it is for metadata-only retrieval and is safe for confidential data, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given.

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