hamravesh_app_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 defaults to the last ~200 lines, which is helpful. However, it omits behavioral details such as mutation (likely read-only), rate limits, or what happens with custom index parameters.

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 concise sentences, effectively front-loading purpose and critical usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how to interpret logs. The prerequisite instruction is useful but insufficient for full agent understanding.

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 only 33% (3 of 9 parameters described). The description adds context for endpoint-related parameters (from_index, to_index, reference_index) but does not clarify the remaining 6 parameters or their roles. It relies heavily on the schema, which is inadequate for a tool with many parameters.

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 states 'logs of an app' which clearly indicates the tool retrieves logs. It also provides a prerequisite step referencing a sibling tool, helping distinguish from other app-related tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', slightly reducing clarity.

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 instructs to first use hamravesh_app_containers to obtain the pod name, providing clear sequential guidance. It also mentions that the tool sets reasonable defaults, but does not specify when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives.

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