docker_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the two major behavioral defaults (error-only filtering, 300-char truncation) and the accepted time formats for since/until. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, but 'shows logs' implies non-mutating behavior.

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 short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, defaults/rationale, alternative tool, and time format guidance. No redundant text; information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, defaults, alternatives, and time formats, which is sufficient given the 100% schema coverage. It lacks an output format example and failure-mode details (e.g., no logs found), but overall provides a solid mental model for a read-only log tool.

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%, and the description only reiterates what the schema already states about since/until formats and defaults. It adds no new parameter semantics beyond the structured definitions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action (show last lines of logs) on a specific resource (Docker service on a remote VPS), and clearly distinguishes from docker_grep by noting pattern search is handled there. It also describes key defaults (errors only, truncation) that scope the tool's behavior.

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?

It explicitly directs users to docker_grep for targeted pattern searches, offering a clear alternative. The description implies this tool is for general log viewing with error hints, but does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or prerequisites beyond that.

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