get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'tail' implying streaming or following, but does not explain if it blocks, how it handles connections, or any side effects. Missing details like whether it polls or streams.

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, concise but at the expense of necessary detail. While not overly verbose, it could be more informative without adding much length.

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 tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description should cover key behaviors and parameter meanings. It is incomplete, omitting how to use the parameters and what the output contains. No mention of real-time behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fails to mention the parameters: 'node_ref' (required, likely the component ID) and 'lines' (default 100). The phrase 'for a component through the owning live adapter' hints at node_ref but lacks explicit semantics.

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 'Tail logs' and the resource 'for a component through the owning live adapter', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_recent_errors' or 'get_state' that might also relate to log-like data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_recent_errors, get_state). The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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