Get application logs

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

Annotations already communicate read-only safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool returns only trailing lines and fails clearly when the app is not running, which is beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 compact sentences front-load the core behavior and add a relevant failure note with no wasted words. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description sufficiently conveys invocation conditions, failure behavior, and output scope for a simple read-only log tool. There is no output schema, so the exact response format is slightly under-specified, but this does not materially impair correct selection or calling.

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 100% and each parameter is already well-described in the schema. The tool description only restates the lines default and application context, adding little 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving the last lines of a running application's container logs, including the default line count. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling management/list tools, none of which are log-focused.

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?

Establishes the applicable context (running application) and explicitly describes the failure mode if the app is not running. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool targets application logs, so this is sufficient practical guidance.

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