Get job logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior ('byte-capped, restricted to its log files'), but says nothing about truncation handling, pagination, or how to obtain the full log beyond the cap.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the resource plus its constraints are front-loaded ahead of the parameter note. Slightly telegraphic in the parenthetical, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what comes back and how large/truncated logs behave, especially given a 200KB default cap. It covers the safety/scope side but leaves return shape, stream selection, and truncation recovery to inference.

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 coverage is only 40% (jobId, stream, maxBytes undocumented), so the description should compensate more than it does. It does add real value by stating jobId is optional and defaults to the most recent job, and hints at the byte cap, but never explains the stdout/stderr/both stream enum or the maxBytes limit.

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?

Names a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a job's stdout/stderr) with clear scope. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling ris_tail_job_logs, so an agent still has to guess which log-reading tool applies.

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?

It gives one routing clue ('jobId optional — defaults to your most recent job'), which implies usage when the specific job is unknown. It offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus ris_tail_job_logs or any other alternative, leaving selection to inference.

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