pod_logs

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with '[READ]'. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the default tail of 100 lines, the default-namespace fallback, and the container requirement for multi-container pods.

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 primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by an efficient Args list. No wasted prose, though the '[READ]' tag slightly duplicates the annotation.

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 read-only log-fetching tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, defaults, and all parameters adequately. It could mention return format (timestamps, multi-container output) but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and documents all five parameters (name, namespace, tail_lines, container, target). The explanations for namespace default, tail_lines meaning, and container-conditional requirement add real meaning, though name and target are described only thinly.

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 gives a specific verb (Return) and resource (most recent log lines for a pod) with a default scope of 100 lines. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like pod_get or pod_describe, though it does not explicitly say so.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pod_describe, pod_health_rca, or event_list, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only conditional hints ('omit for the target's default namespace', 'required only for multi-container pods') are parameter-level, not usage-level.

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