A container's logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing return behavior: logs are the last lines by default (200), truncated from the start when very long, and include both stdout and stderr. This is genuinely useful context for a read tool, though it omits error/absent-container behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope and packs default and truncation behavior without waste. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be re-explained, and the description covers the key behavioral fact (truncation of long logs). It is complete enough for a read-only log tool, missing only the sibling differentiation and failure-mode notes.

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%, so the schema already documents container, tail, and since. The description only restates the default tail (200) and the truncation implication, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (a container's log lines) and streams (stdout and stderr), so the agent immediately knows this reads logs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling log tools (compose_logs, lab_logs), which an agent must distinguish between.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives like compose_logs or lab_logs. Usage is only weakly implied by the resource being 'a container's' logs.

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