Ops MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'Read'), returns raw log text trimmed to the last N lines, and includes important constraints like not guessing the 'env' parameter. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important notes, args, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. While slightly longer due to detailed examples, every sentence adds value (e.g., EMR debugging steps, parameter warnings). Minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral aspects like output trimming. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on context and usage.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It successfully adds meaning for all parameters: explains 'dag_id', 'dag_run_id', and 'task_id' as identifiers; details 'env' options and critical usage warning; clarifies 'try_number' as attempt count with default; and specifies 'tail_lines' as number of lines from the end with default. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Read the Airflow log for a specific task attempt') and resource ('Airflow log'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_spark_driver_log' or 'get_dag_run_details'. It precisely defines the tool's function without tautology.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including specific examples for EMR debugging (e.g., to find EMR application IDs or job_run_ids). It also names an alternative tool ('read_spark_driver_log') for further steps, clearly differentiating use cases.

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