get_top_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the two-mode behavior. It says nothing about output volume, truncation, whether logs are streamed or buffered, whether the call blocks while a cook is running, or what happens if the node has never cooked.

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?

A single short sentence with the two modes front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though 'Cook logs' reads awkwardly as a compound modifier and the terseness contributes to the missing parameter detail.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions for a 3-parameter tool with a defaulted tail and a nullable optional index. The definition does not supply enough for an agent to predict return size, truncation, or failure behavior.

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%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It implicitly maps node_path to the TOP node and work_item_index to the scheduler-log mode, but the 'tail' parameter (default 4000, presumably a line limit) is never mentioned anywhere, leaving a key control undocumented.

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?

Names a specific resource (cook logs / scheduler log) tied to a TOP node and scopes the two modes clearly. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_top_scheduler_info or get_failed_work_items, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 'or the scheduler log of one work item' clause implicitly tells the agent that supplying a work item switches modes, which is useful. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives for related needs such as inspecting failed items or scheduler state.

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