Container Logs Tool

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't say whether logs stream/follow, whether it blocks, how many containers are supported, or what permissions or constraints apply.

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 one-line description is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and runtime-log behavior. Brevity here comes at the cost of necessary context, not as efficient structuring.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile, so return values need not be explained. Still, the description leaves important operational context unstated—e.g., whether logs are current-only, how tail/since interact, or whether the call follows logs—which an agent needs to 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 100%, so the schema already documents name, tail, since, and timestamps. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get container logs'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, among many container_* siblings it offers no differentiation from tools like container_inspect_tool or container_stats_tool, and the description is too terse to fully clarify scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as container_inspect_tool for metadata or container_stats_tool for resource usage. The agent must infer that 'logs' means runtime output rather than inspect/stat data.

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