compose_logs

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

The description discloses behavior beyond annotations: it states 'never follows', mentions caps (MAX_CLI_OUTPUT_BYTES), and provides return format with truncated flag. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful operational details without contradiction.

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 well-structured with a leading sentence that captures the core purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise; however, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of log retrieval, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, defaults, constraints, return format, and truncation behavior. No gaps are evident.

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 explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: describes project_dir, files, project_name, services, tail (with default 200 and special behavior for 0), since, until, and timestamps. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with 'Fetch a bounded slice of logs from a compose project (never follows).', clearly stating the action (fetch logs), the resource (compose project), and a key distinction (bounded, not following). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'follow_container_logs'.

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 implicitly suggests usage for bounded log retrieval by stating 'never follows', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_logs or service_logs. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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