get_task_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return values (stdout/stderr, errors, timing), giving good behavioral insight. It does not explicitly state no side effects or authorization needs, but for a read-only log tool this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, bulleted usage examples, and an Args list. It is slightly verbose with the example queries, but remains clear and front-loaded.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool returns, parameter semantics, and usage context. It does not discuss potential errors or performance, but is complete enough for typical log retrieval.

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 0%, but the description provides detailed, example-rich explanations for all 5 parameters (e.g., try_number: '1-indexed, use higher numbers for retries'). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('Get logs') and resource ('task instance execution'). It differentiates from siblings like get_task_instance by focusing on logs, and provides user query examples that match the tool's function.

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 lists when to use the tool with specific user queries (e.g., 'Show me the logs for task X'). It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context (sibling tools) and the examples implicitly provide guidance.

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