App Service logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it identifies Kudu as the underlying source, explains Linux vs. Windows behavior for each source value, and notes that Windows application logging must be enabled. It does not cover every behavior such as pagination or authentication, but the added detail is meaningful.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: the main verb-resource statement, Linux source semantics, Windows source semantics, and the routing to azure_logs_query for older logs. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 read-only log tool with strong annotations and a fully documented input schema, the description covers the key context: source selection, OS differences, a prerequisite, and the sibling tool for older logs. It does not describe the output format, but no output schema exists and the purpose is clear enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without elaboration. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what 'app' and 'platform' mean on Linux and Windows, and it contextualizes the 'lines' parameter with 'most recent log lines.' This adds real value to the bare parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Reads the most recent log lines of an App Service or Function app' from Kudu log files. It distinguishes itself from azure_logs_query by explicitly noting the older-logs case, so an agent can tell this tool apart from siblings.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: this tool reads recent on-disk log lines, and 'For logs older than the files on disk, use azure_logs_query.' It also provides per-OS guidance for the 'source' parameter, including a prerequisite for Windows app logging, making the selection decision explicit.

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