modal_app_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, whether pagination exists, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal but not contradictory.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, but slightly under-specified in that it provides no contextual details. Still, it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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?

The tool is simple and all parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual details such as the distinction from container-level logs, expected response structure, or common use cases. The lack of an output schema increases the need for such context, which is not provided.

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 parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself fully documents all parameters (e.g., appIdentifier, env, tail, since, source).

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 'Fetch logs for an App' clearly identifies the action (fetch) and the resource (App), distinguishing it from container-level tools like modal_container_logs. It is specific and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself in the text.

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 modal_container_logs. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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