get_run_logs

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get the logs', which implies a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, or whether the run must be completed. The lack of annotation burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool. However, it could be better structured with a separate requirements or return section.

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 output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not explain returns. However, missing context about log format, pagination, or prerequisites (e.g., run status) makes it borderline adequate for a simple 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 coverage is 0%, but the description's 'Args' section adds minimal value: 'The run ID whose logs to fetch' essentially restates the parameter name and property title. It does not explain acceptable values, format, or how to obtain the run_id.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'logs of a specific run', which is clear and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_run' or 'list_runs', but the focus on logs is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_run' or 'list_runs'). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or use-case context.

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