get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully specifies that logs come from stdout/stderr and from the pod's app process, but it omits details like default line count, ordering, timestamps, or whether logs from previous container instances are included.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and readable, though the brevity comes at the cost of parameter and usage detail captured in other dimensions.

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?

Despite the simple two-parameter schema, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must support both selection and invocation. It explains what logs are returned but leaves the behavior of the optional 'lines' parameter, default behavior, and return format unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly suggests that 'name' identifies a pod. The 'lines' parameter is not explained at all beyond schema constraints, leaving its meaning, default, and relationship to 'recent' ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('recent stdout/stderr logs from a pod's app process'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_pod or exec_command by naming the exact log streams and process scope.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving application logs from a pod, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as exec_command, read_file, or get_pod, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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