service_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral details: the stream is joined into a single string, collection is capped at `max_bytes` with a ValueError if exceeded, default `tail=200`, and the risk of `tail='all'` exceeding context. No contradictions.

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 one-line summary, a narrative block explaining the 'never follows' design, then an args list. Information is front-loaded. However, the default `tail=200` is mentioned both in the narrative and the args list, which is slightly redundant. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 8 parameters, annotations, and the presence of an output schema (returning str), the description covers all essential aspects: tool behavior, parameter details, return type, and risk mitigation (max_bytes, tail defaults). It is fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It provides a detailed bullet list explaining each parameter (e.g., `since` as Unix timestamp, `max_bytes` aborting with ValueError, `tail` accepting integer or 'all'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type and default annotations.

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 starts with 'Get a bounded snapshot of a swarm service's logs (never follows).' This uses clear verb+resource and immediately distinguishes this tool from log-following tools like compose_logs or container_logs, which may support streaming. The bounded snapshot concept sets it apart.

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 explains that `follow` is intentionally not exposed and why (blocks forever), and provides guidance on default `tail=200` and `max_bytes` to prevent issues. It implies when to use (bounded logs) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling log tools like compose_logs or container_logs, missing a clear when-not-to-use statement.

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