Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions three optional parameters (tail, since, timestamps) but doesn't describe the tool's behavior: whether it streams or returns static logs, what format/log levels are included, if it requires container to be running, or any authentication/permission requirements. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 - just two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second enumerates key features. There's zero wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (log format, structure, potential streaming behavior), doesn't mention error conditions or limitations, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of log retrieval operations and the lack of structured metadata, more comprehensive description is needed.

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 description mentions three optional parameters (tail, since, timestamps) which aligns with the input schema's 4 parameters (container + 3 optional). With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming these are supported options, meeting the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('container logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'docker_ps' or 'docker_inspect' by focusing specifically on log retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'k8s_logs' or 'log_tail' which might serve similar functions in different contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'k8s_logs', 'log_tail', and 'compose_logs' available, there's no indication of when Docker container logs specifically require this tool versus other logging tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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