pbs_get_task_log

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail about pagination via start/limit and tail=true returning only the end of the log. It does not describe the return format, but since an output schema exists, that gap is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds practical pagination/tail guidance, making every word earn its place.

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 log-fetching tool, the description is adequate: annotations cover safety, output schema covers return shape, and pagination/tail behaviors are explained. It could benefit from a brief mention of when to prefer this over pbs_get_task_status, but that is not essential here.

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 schema coverage is low at 0% for the top-level parameter object, so the description partially compensates by explaining start/limit as pagination and tail=true for the end of the log. The required upid parameter is not described, but it is self-evident from the tool name and schema constraints.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Fetch log lines from a PBS task.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like pbs_get_task_status (status) and pbs_list_tasks (task listing). The added note about checking 'how a verify or GC finished' further clarifies its intended use.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'usually all you need to see how a verify or GC finished.' It implies the tail mode is the primary use case. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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