get_service_logs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the tool returns a structured status summary derived from service inspection, including state, deployment status, resources, and errors. It also discloses that the 'lines' parameter is currently unused, preventing an agent from expecting raw-log pagination behavior. No contradiction 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The note about raw logs is placed immediately after, and the Args section is minimal. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 read-only diagnostics tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough context: what the tool returns, why it is not raw logs, and which parameter is currently inert. The note resolves the main realistic confusion caused by the tool name. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It adds the critical fact that 'lines' is reserved and currently unused, which goes beyond the schema. However, 'service_id: Service ID' only restates the schema's title and adds no additional semantic detail. The description partially compensates but does not fully enrich both parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a status/diagnostics summary for a service.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from raw container log streaming, which is exactly the ambiguity the tool name creates. This makes it immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from a naive reading of 'logs.'

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 clearly says when this tool is appropriate: when a service status/diagnostics summary is needed. It also gives an explicit when-not: raw container log streaming is not exposed by the API, so this tool should not be expected to return raw logs. It does not name a sibling alternative like get_deployment_logs, but the context is still clear enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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