get_threat_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with a [READ-ONLY] prefix. It adds a useful detail about using the PanOS log API type=log, but does not disclose specifics like time window limits, pagination behavior, or response format. The annotations carry most of the safety disclosure burden.

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 compact sentences front-load the read-only nature and core purpose, then summarize the main parameter capabilities. There is no fluff or repetition; every phrase adds information.

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 simple parameter set and fully covered schema, the description is mostly complete for calling the tool correctly. The only notable gap is clarifying what 'recent' means and whether there are any default time-window constraints, but this is a minor omission for a query-based log fetch.

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 all three parameters (nlogs, query, firewall) are already fully documented with types, bounds, defaults, and examples. The description adds a brief high-level mention of filtering and result limiting, but does not need to add more since the schema is comprehensive.

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 the action (retrieves), the resource (recent threat logs), and the underlying mechanism (PanOS log API type=log). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling log-retrieval tools like get_traffic_logs or get_system_logs without needing to inspect the schema.

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 scope is implicitly clear: use this tool when threat logs are needed and filtering or count limiting is desired. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be valuable given the sibling tools for traffic, system, config, and URL filtering logs.

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