Get container logs for a deployment

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description adds useful non-obvious behavior: logs include crash output and are retained for stopped deployments only if Endpoint Storage was configured. 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?

Three tight sentences cover what the tool returns, when to call it, and an important retention caveat. No filler; the usage guidance is front-loaded before the edge case.

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 simple read-only log retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context: what logs are retrieved, when to use it, and the retention limitation. The lack of an output schema is not a gap here.

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 of request_id and max_characters. The description does not add parameter-level details, but the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('stdout/stderr and crash output for a deployment'), making the tool's function unambiguous. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools that list, stop, or create deployments/apps.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: call when a deployment errors or a server exits unexpectedly, and explains the diagnostic value of the crash exit code. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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