infomaniak_nodejs_app_logs

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations. It explains that the JWT is one-shot, valid for ~1h, the endpoint URL, and how to consume the SSE stream. The annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It also adds 'Manager-private' context.

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 brief and to the point: four sentences covering purpose, returned data, usage instructions, and a snapshot tip. No redundant information. Front-loaded with 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description doesn't reference it. The description explains the returned credentials and their usage, which is likely sufficient for an agent. However, the lack of parameter explanation is a significant gap, and the description does not address what the output schema contains or how to interpret the response beyond the JWT and endpoint.

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 two required integer parameters (hosting_id, vhost_route_id) with no descriptions. The schema coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they affect the tool's behavior. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: to obtain credentials for consuming the live stdout/stderr stream of a Node.js application. The verb 'Get credentials' and resource 'live stdout/stderr stream' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings that handle other aspects of Node.js apps (status, action, aliases, jobs, thumbnail).

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 instructions on how to use the returned credentials (SSE consumption via curl, snapshot by killing curl). It also mentions 'Manager-private.' Though it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools, the context makes it clear that this tool is for log streaming, while siblings serve other purposes.

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