container_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only says 'collect and display'. Missing details: whether logs are streamed or one-shot, behavior for stopped containers, log format, or error handling (e.g., container not found).

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 brief and to the point, with no wasted words. The structure lists parameters separately. However, key behavioral info is missing, which dampens conciseness.

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 no annotations and minimal description, the tool may need more context (e.g., log format, output schema nature). The description does not cover what the output looks like or edge cases, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains that container_name identifies the container and tail sets the number of lines (default 200). This is basic but sufficient for the parameters.

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 action ('collect and display') and the resource ('logs for a container'). It differentiates from sibling tools like stack_logs (stack-level logs) and container_stats (performance stats).

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., stack_logs for stack logs, container_inspect for config). No prerequisites or conditions for use are mentioned.

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