u1_get_run_logs

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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavior. It does state the core return content (stdout/stderr) and that it only runs on explicit request, which is useful. It omits any edge-case behavior like stream separation, absence of logs, or truncation semantics.

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?

One terse sentence with no filler, front-loading the action before the qualifier.

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 simple log-tail tool, run_id and tail are inferable; however, the absence of an output schema and any description of the return format or error behavior leaves gaps. It is minimally viable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only weakly hints at parameters: 'one run' implies run_id and 'tails' implies tail, but it doesn't explain tail units, defaulting, or requiredness.

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 clear verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('stdout/stderr log tails') scoped to 'one run,' so an agent can tell what it does. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the log resource is distinct enough among siblings like u1_get_run and u1_list_runs.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative routing is provided beyond the vague phrase 'on explicit request.' It doesn't say when to prefer this over u1_get_run or u1_list_runs, and no exclusions are given.

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