compose_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'never follows' and mentions truncation behavior (capped at MAX_CLI_OUTPUT_BYTES) and the truncated return flag. Could be more transparent about prerequisites (e.g., compose project must be running). Adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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?

First line clearly states purpose. The args section is thorough but slightly verbose; however, every line adds necessary detail. No redundant sentences. Slightly longer than needed but still efficient.

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?

Covers all parameters, return type (dict with returncode, stdout, stderr, truncated), and mentions bounded behavior. Lacks explicit statement about prerequisites (e.g., compose file existence). Output schema is absent, but return structure is described. Generally complete for a log tool.

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?

All 8 parameters are explained with defaults, allowed values (e.g., tail accepts integer or 'all'), and usage context (e.g., since/until formats). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the parameter documentation burden. Excellent compensation.

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?

Clearly states it fetches a bounded slice of logs from a compose project and explicitly notes 'never follows', distinguishing it from streaming log tools. Verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_logs or service_logs. The 'never follows' note is a differentiator but not framed as a selection criterion. Missing when-not-to-use instructions.

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