Follow logs

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

The description discloses that the tool polls logs (rather than streaming) and is bounded in duration, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also indicates logs are 'recent', implying a time constraint. The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds further useful 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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes: it specifies the action (poll), the resource (recent deployment logs), the constraint (bounded duration), and the use case (short tail -f style observation). No unnecessary filler.

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 tool has high complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions) but the description only provides a high-level behavior. It does not clarify how the many optional parameters relate to each other, what the output format is, or any usage caveats. Given the low schema/annotation richness, the description should carry more of the burden, but it falls short.

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 0% with 14 parameters, none of which are described in the input schema or the tool description. The description only mentions 'recent deployment logs' but provides no details on how parameters like deployment_id, project_id, limit, or duration_ms affect behavior. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing parameter information.

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 tool polls recent deployment logs for a bounded duration, using the specific verb 'poll' and identifying the resource as deployment logs. It also differentiates itself from alternatives by describing it as 'short tail -f style observation', which distinguishes it from other log-related tools like tail_logs or search_logs.

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 a clear usage context: 'use for short tail -f style observation'. This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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