show_instance_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals a non-obvious behavior: logs are uploaded to S3 and the response contains a URL to fetch them, rather than returning logs directly. It also mentions the PUT method, which is unusual for a 'show' operation. However, it omits details like URL expiration or asynchronous processing, which would be additional valuable context.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence introducing the action, a second sentence disclosing the S3 URL behavior, and two clear example calls. Every sentence adds value and the examples are front-loaded to illustrate usage without unnecessary prose.

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 presence of an output schema (which defines return values) and the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters), the description covers the core behavior adequately: endpoint, S3 URL, and example calls. The only notable gap is the undefined meaning of the 'tail' parameter, which is a minor omission for an otherwise sufficiently described tool.

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 parameter meaning. The example calls show parameter names and values (e.g., tail=5000), but they do not explain the semantics of 'tail' (e.g., number of lines to fetch) or the role of instance_id beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('instance logs'), including the exact HTTP endpoint (PUT /instances/request_logs/{id}). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that logs are uploaded to S3 and a URL is returned, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 examples imply typical usage (e.g., show_instance_logs(instance_id=12345) and show_instance_logs(instance_id=12345, tail=5000)), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_instance or execute_command. There are no clear exclusions or alternative tool references.

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