view_run_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 states 'Read logs' and 'from the most recent run', implying a read-only operation focused on recent data, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the logs contain (e.g., format, verbosity). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read logs') and scope ('from a specific task or the entire pipeline from the most recent run'). There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of log retrieval (which can involve permissions, data formats, and error cases), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the logs contain, how they're structured, potential errors, or dependencies on other tools like 'get_last_run'. For a tool with two parameters and behavioral nuances, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'taskId' specifies it's for viewing logs for a task or defaults to pipeline.log, and 'config' indicates it determines the output directory. The description adds marginal value by implying the scope ('specific task or entire pipeline') but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already documents, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('Read logs') and resource ('from a specific task or the entire pipeline'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_last_run' or 'parse_metrics', which might also involve run-related data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'from a specific task or the entire pipeline', but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_last_run' (which might provide run status) or 'parse_metrics' (which could handle log analysis). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included, limiting its utility for decision-making.

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