get_deployment_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets logs' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured vs. unstructured data, or includes pagination/timestamp filtering. For a logging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 single-parameter read operation with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core function but lacks important context about log format, volume, authentication needs, and how it differs from sibling tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, which it doesn't.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'deploymentId' clearly documented as 'The Railway deployment ID'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond this (e.g., where to find the ID, format examples, or related parameters like log level/time range). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get logs') and target resource ('for a specific deployment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployment' or 'get_service' that might also retrieve deployment-related information, nor does it specify what type of logs (e.g., build, runtime, error).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a deployment ID from another operation), when this is appropriate versus other logging tools (if any exist), or what context it's meant for (debugging, monitoring, etc.).

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