list_discovery_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety and mutability are covered structurally. The description adds the one genuinely extra fact, that results come back newest first, but says nothing about pagination, volume, or what result codes signify for troubleshooting.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries information: table name, payload type, and sort order. Nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only gestures at the shape of a record ('result codes') without describing fields or paging behavior. Adequate to call the tool, but thin for interpreting Discovery log output when diagnosing probe failures.

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 description coverage is 100% and every one of the 4 optional filters is documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format hints, valid values, or guidance on combining the encoded query string with the sys_id filters.

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?

A specific verb plus resource (list Discovery log entries), with the exact table name (discovery_log) and a one-line characterization of the payload (sensor/probe messages with result codes). It stops short of distinguishing itself from nearby siblings such as list_discovery_runs or get_discovery_run.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the 'newest first' note; there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus list_discovery_runs, get_discovery_run, or list_discovered_devices, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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