get_config_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's '[READ-ONLY]' prefix adds no new safety information. The description does add that it uses the PanOS log API with type=log and that results are 'recent,' which is modest behavioral context. No rate limits, pagination, or return format details are provided, but annotations cover the main safety profile.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, API context, filtering, and result limiting without fluff. The '[READ-ONLY]' prefix is redundant with the annotations, which keeps it from being flawless, but the overall structure is compact and effective.

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 fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and capabilities. The main missing piece is return-format or time-window context, but no output schema exists and the description does not mislead. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters: nlogs, query, and firewall. The description's mention of 'filtering by query and limiting result count' aligns with the query and nlogs parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('recent configuration change logs from the firewall') with an explicit API context ('PanOS log API type=log'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling log tools like get_system_logs, get_traffic_logs, get_threat_logs, and get_url_filter_logs.

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 provides clear context: use this for configuration change logs from a firewall. It mentions filtering by query and limiting result count, which gives practical invocation guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource type itself makes the intended use clear.

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