get_pod_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention key behaviors like the default tail_lines (100), timestamps prepending RFC3339, and previous accessing terminated instances. However, it doesn't address scope behaviors like namespace/cluster alias handling or behavior when no container is specified in a multi-container pod.

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 a clear purpose, followed by a bulleted option list. It avoids unnecessary prose, but the option list reads as a parameter reference rather than a narrative, which is slightly less structured for an agent.

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 main logging options but leaves out namespace and cluster_alias, which are part of the schema. It also doesn't provide usage context or alternative tool guidance, making it incomplete for complex multi-cluster scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains five of eight parameters (container, tail_lines, since_seconds, timestamps, previous) with clear semantics, but it omits name, namespace, and cluster_alias, which are present in the schema. This is partial compensation.

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 clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'Get logs from a Pod.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pod (which retrieves pod details) and get_all_container_logs/previous_pod_logs, and the option list reinforces the log-focused scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies its use for retrieving pod logs, it doesn't mention exclusions or direct the user to sibling tools for specific cases, such as retrieving logs from all containers or previous instances.

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