get_previous_pod_logs

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that logs come from the previous instance and clarifies that 'previous' means crashed/terminated, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any potential error conditions (e.g., what happens if no previous instance exists), required permissions, or rate limits. The behavior is reasonably transparent for a simple read operation, but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the function; the second provides a concise equivalence. There is no redundant wording, and each sentence contributes necessary information.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, and relies on an output schema for return values. The description gives enough context to understand the tool's basic role and its relationship to `get_pod_logs`, but it does not cover parameter details, possible failures, or prerequisites. Given the simplicity of the operation and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the five parameters (name, container, namespace, tail_lines, cluster_alias). The only indirect hint is the reference to `get_pod_logs(..., previous=True)`, which implies parameter alignment but does not explicitly explain their meaning or defaults. The schema itself provides only names and types, so the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 function: 'Get logs from the previous (crashed/terminated) instance of a pod container.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource ('previous instance of a pod container'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling `get_pod_logs` by framing it as a shortcut with `previous=True`. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context by specifying that it targets logs from crashed/terminated instances and directly references the alternative: 'Shortcut for get_pod_logs(..., previous=True).' This tells the agent when to use this tool (to avoid setting the `previous` flag) and how it relates to the primary tool. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it, such as when live logs are needed, so it falls just short of a 5.

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