local_ydb_container_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one behavioral nuance—'recent' logs and tail-length control—but otherwise relies on schema details for target/profile/configPath behavior. It does not describe output format, ordering, or failure mode for missing containers, though these are not critical for a simple read-only log tool.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second sentence adds the usage trigger plus a compact mapping of key parameters. Every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity, read-only log tool with a fully documented parameter schema, the combination of description and schema is mostly complete. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the phrase 'Read recent Docker logs,' which implies the result is log content. Minor non-critical details like log format or timestamping are not covered, but an agent selecting this tool should have enough to invoke it correctly.

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 already has a thorough description: target enumerates static/dynamic, lines has a default, profile points to defaults, and configPath explains fail-closed behavior. The description's mention of 'target selects the container role' and 'lines controls the tail length' essentially repeats schema information, adding little new semantic value.

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 recent Docker logs from the configured static or primary dynamic local-ydb container.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling status, health, and bootstrap tools by making the diagnostic log-reading purpose explicit. There is no ambiguity about what the tool operates on or produces.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when bootstrap, restart, or readiness checks fail.' This gives a concrete trigger context. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the top of the scale.

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