Container App logs

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining source semantics, the workspace location, and the 'oldest first' ordering. It does not contradict the read-only annotation; 'Reads' is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: purpose and workspace first, then source semantics, then filtering and ordering. The most decision-critical info (what the tool reads) is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 6-param read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key agent decision points: what it reads, which source to choose, how to filter, and result ordering. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the return format, but for a log reader that is self-evident and acceptable absent an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by defining what the source enum values mean concretely ('console' = stdout/stderr; 'system' = revision provisioning, image pulls, probe failures, crashes, scaling) and by mapping 'Filter by revision or by text' to the revision/search parameters. This adds real meaning the schema lacks.

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+resource ('Reads recent Container App logs') plus the backing store (Log Analytics workspace). It distinguishes itself from log siblings (azure_aks_pod_logs, azure_appservice_logs, azure_logs_query) by defining the two log sources and their content, so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely provides.

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 clear internal guidance on when to pick 'console' vs 'system' by enumerating what each contains, and explains filtering by revision/text. However, it never names or routes to alternative tools such as azure_aks_pod_logs or azure_appservice_logs, so when-not-to-use-this guidance is left to inference rather than stated explicitly.

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