get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action with no mention of side effects, preconditions (like needing a valid ref), size limits, or edge cases. The tail behavior for max_bytes is only in the parameter description, not the main description.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but somewhat under-specified; one might expect a bit more context, yet it remains clear and direct.

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 existence of an output schema and well-described parameters, the description lacks essential context such as how the 'ref' is obtained, when this tool is appropriate, and its relationship to get_operations. It feels incomplete for a tool that clearly depends on prior operations.

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 parameter descriptions for 'ref' and 'max_bytes' are informative, including the source of the ref and truncation behavior. The main description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch the log output for an operation' clearly identifies the action (fetch) and the resource (log output), with the scope of an operation. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_config or get_health, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_summary or get_operations.

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 or how it relates to siblings. The schema mentions that the 'ref' comes from get_operations, but this is in the parameter description, not the main description. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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