task_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool wraps `flowctl logs`, which is a concrete behavioral detail (external command execution). However, it does not mention output format, ordering, or error behavior, leaving gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two sentences are efficient, though the first is a noun phrase rather than a proper sentence. No wasted words.

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 tool's basic role and underlying command, but omits the output format and does not mention how `limit` or `level` map to the CLI command. Given the schema covers parameters well, the description is adequate but not comprehensive for a no-output-schema 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own parameter details, merely repeating the level filtering concept.

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 identifies the tool as returning recent task logs, and the wrapper line specifies the underlying command. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch', but the intent is unambiguous and it is distinct from sibling tools like task_stats or task_health.

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 such as task_status or task_health. The mention of optional level filtering is parameter detail, not usage context.

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