get_container_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the API may not expose a direct logs endpoint and suggests a workaround, which is useful. But it omits other behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or output format.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the main action and a critical caveat. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 the moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and lack of param descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and a failure scenario but fails to document inputs or outputs, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (tail, env_id, agent_token, container_id). The agent has no semantic understanding of what each parameter does.

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 'Fetch logs from a container', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_container or get_container_stats, all of which have different purposes.

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 provides a workaround for when the API returns 404 (use SSH to Docker host), which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, limiting its guidance.

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