get_job_logs

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the user-scoping constraint, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (despite the 'cursor' parameter), potential rate limits, or the fact that logs may be truncated. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, perfectly scoped sentence that conveys the core action and resource. No extraneous information. Ideal conciseness.

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 the tool has three parameters (one required) and an output schema exists, the description should cover parameter semantics and usage context. It fails on parameter explanation and provides no usage guidelines. The output schema likely covers return structure, but the description's gaps make the tool incomplete for an agent.

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. Only 'jobId' is implicitly clear from the resource name. The optional parameters 'limit' and 'cursor' are not mentioned, leaving their semantics entirely unspecified. This is a significant gap that hampers correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'execution logs for a specific Jungle Grid job'. It adds a key constraint ('belonging to the authenticated user') that helps distinguish from potential admin-only tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_job' or 'get_artifact', preventing a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_jobs' or 'get_job'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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