container_logs

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the 32 MiB cap and ValueError, follow-mode termination conditions (limit_lines, timeout_seconds, container exit), and the SSH stream caveat. It discloses failure modes and limits, which is exactly what an agent needs to trust the tool.

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?

The description is well-structured: a clear one-sentence overview, then focused paragraphs on behavior, limits, and caveats, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence delivers actionable information without redundancy. It is dense but not verbose, and front-loads the core purpose.

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 tool with 10 parameters and two modes, the description covers all critical aspects: mode differences, limits, edge cases (SSH daemon, context size), and return type. It also notes the output schema exists, so the agent knows additional return details are available. No gaps are apparent for an agent to safely invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter's role and interaction (e.g., 'limit_lines/timeout_seconds apply only in follow mode', 'until only in snapshot mode'). It also defines 'tail' values (integer or 'all') and defaults, effectively compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the logs of a container' and immediately distinguishes two modes (snapshot vs. follow). It also contrasts with sibling tools like service_logs, making its scope clear. This goes beyond a generic statement and gives an agent precise understanding of what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells when to use alternative tools (service_logs) and provides practical guidance on parameter choices ('Prefer an integer tail... over tail="all"'). It also warns about the SSH caveat and recommends snapshot mode for hard time bounds, giving clear exclusions and context for decision-making.

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