get_container_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavior like idempotency, potential errors (e.g., container not found), or rate limits. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the action.

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 extremely concise: two sentences including the parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. No superfluous content.

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 covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., container must be running) and does not describe the output format despite an output schema being present. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for a retrieval tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates by listing parameters with explanations in the Args section: container_id (Container ID or name) and lines (Number of log lines to retrieve, default 50). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/required/default fields.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve logs from a Docker container.' The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'logs from a Docker container' are clear. Among sibling tools, 'webapp_view_logs' is for web apps, and 'list_containers' lists containers, so this tool is distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'webapp_view_logs' or 'list_containers'. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., container must be running) or mention when not to use it.

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