coolify_get_database_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the core behavior (retrieving logs with optional filters) but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, if it has rate limits, or if log retrieval could impact performance. The description is factual but lacks depth about side effects or constraints.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve logs for a Coolify database') and then enumerates key filtering capabilities. It is efficient and avoids extraneous detail, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for filters) without harming conciseness.

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 tool has 7 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not explain the return format (e.g., JSON array, timestamp structure), default behavior when no filters are applied, or edge cases (e.g., empty results). It covers the core functionality but leaves some practical questions unanswered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about filtering options but does not elaborate beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the meaning of 'tail' behavior or how 'level' filtering works). It offers no additional semantic value for individual parameters.

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 'Retrieve logs for a Coolify database' (specific verb+resource) and lists optional filtering capabilities (level, time range, text search). This differentiates it from sibling tools like coolify_get_logs (which likely retrieves general logs) and coolify_get_service_logs, as it targets database-specific 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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like coolify_get_logs or coolify_get_service_logs. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., the database must exist), no exclusions, and no mention of typical use cases (e.g., debugging database issues).

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