agents_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and side effects. 'Read' indicates a non-destructive operation, and the cursor mechanism implies logs are retained for incremental access. It does not detail edge cases like end-of-stream or error behavior, but the key trait (incremental read) is disclosed.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core operation, and the second explains the continuation mechanism. All content is useful.

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 two-parameter log reader, the description is sufficient. It explains the input concept (cursor) and the expected behavior (incremental output). Although no output schema exists, the phrase 'returned cursor' implies the response contains a cursor, making the tool understandable end-to-end.

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 schema covers task_id (required UUID) and cursor (integer) with minimal descriptions. The description adds meaning to cursor by explaining it is a character cursor and that passing the returned one fetches new output, effectively defining pagination. task_id is not elaborated but is self-evident from 'agent'.

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 identifies the tool's function: reading agent stdout/stderr using a character cursor. The verb 'Read' and resource 'agent stdout/stderr' are specific, and the cursor concept distinguishes it from sibling tools like agents_status.

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?

It explicitly instructs to pass the returned cursor to fetch only new output, providing usage context. However, it doesn't mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so there's no explicit exclusion or comparison.

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