local_ydb_container_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds useful context about container roles (static vs primary dynamic) and config selection, but doesn't disclose behavior beyond what annotations plus schema provide—no mention of log format, error surface, or whether the read is streaming or one-shot.

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 that front-load the core purpose in the first clause and pack usage guidance and parameter hints into the remainder. Zero wasted words, no boilerplate, appropriately compact for a read-only log-tail tool.

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?

Given four parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and a straightforward log-read operation, the description adequately covers the diagnostic trigger context and parameter roles. It could mention error behavior or container-not-running states, but for a simple read tool with good annotations this is effectively complete.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'target' (selects container role), 'lines' (controls tail length), and implicitly the config path/profile use cases. The description frames the configPath parameter as useful for picking up a different config without restart, which is helpful semantic context beyond the schema description.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Read recent Docker logs') and clearly scopes it to the local-ydb container, distinguishing between static and primary dynamic roles via the 'target' parameter. The mention of bootstrap/restart/readiness-failure use cases differentiates it from sibling tools like local_ydb_database_status or local_ydb_healthcheck.

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 provides clear triggering context ('Use when bootstrap, restart, or readiness checks fail') which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the use-case framing effectively implies the diagnostic scope vs sibling operational tools.

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