deployment_logs

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations by explaining that severity is passed through unvalidated, that an invalid value surfaces the server rejection message, that limit has explicit defaults and caps, and that nextPageToken pages toward older entries. These are meaningful runtime behaviors not visible in 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 compact, front-loads the main purpose, and then efficiently covers the key parameter behaviors. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only log retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the target, owner resolution, severity semantics, limit bounds, and pagination. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and handle normal server 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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds some value beyond the schema by noting that invalid severity values return the server's own rejection and that nextPageToken moves through older entries, which clarifies pagination direction. However, much of the parameter detail is already present in the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read log entries for one deployment.' It clarifies how the deployment is addressed (owner/deployment or bare slug) and naturally distinguishes this from sibling tools like deployment_metrics or deployment_health by focusing on log retrieval.

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 usage context is clear: this tool is for reading logs of a single deployment, with optional severity filtering, limit tuning, and pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when it is the right sibling.

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