neuron_get_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' plus 'recent' implies a non-destructive, time-bounded read, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose the return shape, the default time window behind 'recent', or whether retrieving logs drains/clears the buffer — gaps that matter more because no annotations or output schema exist.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, states the scope ('recent'), and enumerates the filter dimensions. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with five well-documented optional parameters, the definition is minimally viable. But with no output schema and no annotations, the response format, default result limit behavior, and the relationship to siblings like neuron_get_errors remain undisclosed. An agent could call it, but would be guessing about output shape and when it's the right diagnostic tool.

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 every parameter (limit, tabId, levels, search, sinceMs) already has a description in the schema. The tool description only paraphrases the filters at a high level and adds no detail beyond what the schema supplies, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('Get'), a distinct resource ('console logs'), and the filter dimensions ('tab, level, and time'), so an agent can grasp the core purpose immediately. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get_* tools, but the resource is unique enough within the family (vs. errors, requests, ws_frames, cookies) that the basic scope is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many siblings that also retrieve diagnostics (neuron_get_errors, neuron_get_requests, neuron_search_traffic, neuron_get_ws_frames), the description should at least hint at when console logs are the right source, but it offers nothing.

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