read_app_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful context by noting logs are temporary, not written to disk, and not addressed by cursor, but it does not explicitly state side effects, return behavior, or permissions, leaving some uncertainty.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose ('Search...log pool') and add essential caveats in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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 description explains the source and temporary nature of logs but does not describe return format, ordering, or how results are presented. With no output schema, the agent is left to infer the result structure, making the description adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including their optionality and semantics. The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying that the parameters serve as filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('current app run's in-memory DebugBridge log pool'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'current' and 'in-memory', differentiating it from tools like wait_app_logs or persistent log readers.

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 provides context such as 'current app run' and 'in-memory', implying the tool is for temporary, ephemeral logs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wait_app_logs, 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.