coolify_get_application_preview_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves runtime container logs, supports level/time/text filtering, and is version-specific (Coolify v4.3.23). It does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no logs match, but the filtering semantics are reasonably transparent. The version pin is a useful behavioral caveat.

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 states the action, resource, identifier, version, and filtering capabilities. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema details.

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 log-retrieval tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource type, the key identifier, and the filtering dimensions. It does not explain the relationship between 'lines' and 'limit' (though the schema does), nor does it describe the return format. Given the schema covers parameters and the tool is a read operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 all 10 parameters. The description adds the high-level filtering dimensions (level/time/text) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('runtime container logs for an application preview'), and a specific identifier ('by pull request number'). It also names the Coolify version (v4.3.23) and the filtering dimensions (level/time/text). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling log tools like coolify_get_logs, coolify_get_database_logs, and coolify_get_service_logs, which target different resource types.

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 implies the tool is for application preview logs, which distinguishes it from database/service logs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the use case, but there is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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