Get log context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Fetch' aligns with this. The description adds the scoping behavior (by project or deployment) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or rate limits, which are not covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, containing no redundant words or filler. It efficiently conveys the main idea.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation, the description is too terse. It fails to explain most parameters, the expected return value, or any conditions/prerequisites. Sibling tools like search_logs or tail_logs have more context, and this tool's unique capabilities are under-described.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description only hints at 'project or deployment' scoping, but fails to explain the required 'id' parameter, time-based parameters (after_ms, before_ms), or 'limit'. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Fetch log context') and the resource ('around one log entry'), with scoping by project or deployment. This distinguishes it from sibling logging tools like search_logs or tail_logs, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool is used when needing surrounding log context for a specific entry, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when/why not' guidance.

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