Read the application's logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the source is the running container's stdout and entries are ordered oldest→newest. It says nothing about volume, truncation, or whether the log stream is live, which would have raised the score.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key fact (ordering) is placed at the end where it is easy to miss but present. It is lean to the point of being slightly thin, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, little more is required. The absence of any statement about return shape (raw text vs structured lines) is the main residual gap, and no output schema exists to cover it.

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 the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the limit (e.g. how lines are selected when truncated) and instead spends its words on stream 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 states the resource concretely – printed output of the running container – and the title supplies the verb ('Read'), so the tool's function is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like metrics and health by being raw container output, though it does not name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for logs versus metrics, health, or deployment_status. The only contextual hint is 'newest last', which describes ordering, not usage selection.

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