docker_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 only states 'View logs', implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it blocks when follow=true, whether it requires a running container, or what happens if the container does not exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity; a slightly longer description could provide valuable context without sacrificing 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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., lines of text), the effect of follow=true, or the behavior when lines exceeds available logs. For a moderately complex tool, more context is needed for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Number of lines to show'). It does not explain default behavior or edge cases, but the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 'View logs from a Docker container' uses a specific verb ('view') and resource ('logs from a Docker container'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_stats (system stats), docker_list (list containers), and docker_exec (execute commands), making it unambiguous what this tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as system_logs (for general system logs) or docker_exec (to retrieve logs via command). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., container must be running) or when to avoid using it (e.g., if follow is true and may block).

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