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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: it returns the most recent log and only makes sense in error scenarios. It does not describe output format or pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers the 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and trigger condition are front-loaded, and the practical prerequisite about app_id is stated directly afterward.

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?

The description covers the main use case and the app_id source, but it does not mention where vps_id should come from or what the returned log contains. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the return value would improve completeness. Overall it is adequate for a simple read-only log tool but has a clear gap around vps_id.

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 already documents both app_id and vps_id with formats. The description reinforces that app_id comes from list_apps, which matches the schema, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states a specific action ('Đọc log gần nhất') on a specific resource (app logs) and gives a concrete trigger condition ('khi app ❌ lỗi'). It also points the agent to list_apps as the source for app_id, making the purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: when an app has errored and recent logs are needed. It also gives a clear prerequisite, retrieving app_id from list_apps, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. Since no sibling tool competes for the same log-reading purpose, no exclusion is strictly necessary.

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