get_experiment_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the 5-minute in-memory buffer eviction window and the fallback to a persisted log tail in results (if any). That is exactly the kind of lifecycle/retention behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then polling mechanics, then the fallback caveat — no filler. The final sentence is dense but each clause (eviction timing, fallback source, conditional 'if any') carries distinct information.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the polling model, cursor semantics, override behavior, and data-retention fallback. It could mention return shape (lines plus next_cursor) more explicitly, but next_cursor is referenced sufficiently for an agent to close the loop.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description adds real value: it defines `since` as the previous call's next_cursor (creating a polling loop) and explains the `tail_lines`-overrides-`since` precedence, which the schema does not state. `experiment_id` remains undocumented in both schema and description, a minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch new log lines for a running or finished experiment,' which immediately scopes what is returned. It does not name a sibling tool it competes with (e.g., get_experiment_results), though the mention of the persisted log tail in results hints at the relationship.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: poll with `since` for incremental lines, or pass `tail_lines` for a full-from-start tail view, including the precedence rule that `tail_lines` overrides `since`. It lacks guidance on choosing this tool over sibling tools like get_experiment_results or get_experiment_status, so it stops short of full routing.

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