get-service-logs

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds the behavioral trait of cursor-based pagination, which is useful but does not disclose additional aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or potential empty results. The description is consistent with annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise with no superfluous words, though the typo 'Bult' is a minor detraction.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers the use case and pagination method. It does not explain the return format but for log retrieval this is largely implicit. Some additional detail on cursor handling could improve completeness, but overall it is sufficient.

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 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description mentions cursor-based pagination in general but does not add any specific meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'service logs', and the pagination method. It specifies use cases (debugging failures, errors, runtime issues, cloud hosting status) that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get-service' (which gets service details) and 'list-builds' (lists builds). The 'Bult' typo is minor but does not obscure the purpose.

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 implies usage for debugging specific scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-service' for status or 'list-builds' for builds. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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