get_function_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a read operation and what it shows, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, rate limits, or the format of the output. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 short sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core action and output. Efficient and to the point.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose but lacks depth. With 5 parameters and no output schema, it would benefit from explaining the 'since' and 'request_id' filters, or the structure of the returned logs. The schema fills some gaps, but overall, the description is minimal for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters (name, tail, since, project_id, request_id) beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate with extra context about CloudWatch integration or parameter usage.

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 states the verb 'get' and resource 'recent logs from a deployed function', and specifies the output includes console.log, errors, and stack traces. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_function_run_logs', which has a similar purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_function_run_logs' for run-specific logs. There are no when-not-to-use or prerequisite instructions.

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