hamravesh_app_logs

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behaviors. It mentions optional filters (pod_name, container_name) but fails to describe side effects, data volume, or that it is a read-only operation. Insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Extremely concise (one short sentence). Front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, but for a tool with 5 parameters, more structure could improve clarity.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits explanation of required parameters, return format, and additional behavior (e.g., pagination, filtering logic). Agent lacks context to use tool correctly.

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 only 20% (only 'previous' has a description). The description adds value by stating that pod_name and container_name can be provided as filters, but does not explain app_id (required) or org, and relies on the schema's brief description for 'previous'.

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 'Recent logs of an app', which identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving logs. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle builds, containers, manifests, etc., but does not specify the scope (e.g., all logs, last N lines).

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 on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, the agent has no context about when logs are appropriate.

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