Tail 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the default-resolution behavior for jobId, which is useful, but says nothing about whether the log view is a snapshot, whether it blocks, or rate/refresh behavior.

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 the return contents and the jobId default front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is telegraphic enough that some meaning must be inferred.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description gives the return shape ('logs plus current state') and the jobId default, which is a reasonable start. It falls short on stream/profile/project semantics and the relationship to sibling log tools.

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% across 5 parameters, so the schema does not fully carry the load. The description explains jobId's optionality and default plus the N-lines concept, but is silent on stream, profile, and project semantics, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific action and resource: the last N lines of a job's logs plus current state. It distinguishes scope ('tail', bounded line count) but does not name the closely related ris_get_job_logs sibling, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 note that jobId is optional and defaults to the most recent job implies a quick-look use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus ris_get_job_logs, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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