coolify_get_service_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. The description accurately indicates the tool is for reading logs and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or potentially destructive, nor does it mention any authorization requirements, rate limits, or default pagination behavior (e.g., returns up to 100 logs by default, which is already in schema). The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and filtering options. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Retrieve logs') and resource type ('Coolify service'). While concise, it could be slightly more structured or include brief usage guidance, but it earns its place without unnecessary words.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview but is not fully complete. It omits details like typical use cases, the response format, or whether logs are streamed or fetched in bulk. The sibling context shows many similar log tools; the description does not differentiate well enough to guide an agent completely.

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 minimal semantic value beyond the schema—it summarizes the filtering options (level, time range, text search) but does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., combining since and until for a range) or format examples. The description adds little new meaning.

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 tool retrieves logs for a Coolify service, specifying it's for a service (distinguishing from sibling tools like coolify_get_database_logs or coolify_get_application_logs that retrieve logs for other resource types). It also mentions optional filtering by level, time range, or text search, giving a complete picture of the tool's capabilities.

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 this tool is for retrieving and filtering service logs, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that for application or database logs, one should use coolify_get_application_logs or coolify_get_database_logs instead. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are listed.

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