Logi site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered outside the description. The description adds the useful behavioral trait that only the last lines are returned because logs are read from the end, which is not visible in annotations. It does not describe output formatting, but the tail behavior is the key fact.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, the three log types, and the tail behavior with no wasted words. It does not repeat schema defaults.

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 site-log tool with a well-covered schema, the core contract is clear: site is required, types are explained, and the response is the last lines. It could be slightly more complete by saying more about the output representation and by pointing to forge_get_server_log for server-level logs, so it falls short of a top score.

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 adds real meaning to the type enum by mapping application to the Laravel app log, nginx-error to web-server errors, and nginx-access to traffic. The schema only lists the enum values without those semantic labels.

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 names a specific verb and resource (pobiera logi site) and enumerates the three supported log types, so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling forge_get_server_log, but the 'site' scoping makes the resource clear.

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 guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as forge_get_server_log or when not to use it. The description gives the main purpose but no situational context or exclusions.

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