get_job_logs_tail

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: 'cleaned of ANSI + timestamp prefixes', which adds value beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects (none expected) or auth, but the cleaning detail is helpful.

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 plus inline input format example. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then provides input format concisely. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input format, and return value behavior (last N lines cleaned). It could mention error cases or that it only works for failed jobs (already implied), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description repeats the schema structure without adding new constraints or examples. The default for lines is already in the schema. No extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tail of a failed job log' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_failed_jobs (list jobs) or grep_job_logs (search logs). The input format and cleaned output are also stated, leaving no ambiguity.

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 usage after get_failed_jobs by specifying 'failed job log' and referencing jobId from get_failed_jobs, but does not explicitly compare with siblings or provide when-not guidance. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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