docker_container_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that the operation is read-only ('obtiene'), which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose details like Docker daemon access requirements, possible error conditions, or the fact that only historical (not streaming) logs are retrieved.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It fronts the core action and object, making it easy to parse quickly. It would benefit from more detail elsewhere, but as written it is efficient.

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?

For a simple read-only log retrieval tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. The required 'name' and optional 'tail' default are visible in the schema, and the output schema covers return behavior. The main gap is explicit parameter guidance, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can likely invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It does not explicitly explain that 'name' identifies the container or that 'tail' controls the number of lines to return. The phrase 'últimas líneas' loosely hints at tail behavior, but the parameter meanings are largely left to inference from the schema.

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 specific action: 'Obtiene las últimas líneas de logs de un contenedor' (gets the last log lines of a container). This is a specific verb + resource and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_list_containers or docker_restart_container.

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 the tool is for retrieving container logs, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance about scenarios like large log volumes, tail usage, or why one might use this instead of docker_list_containers.

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