portainer_container_logs

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only log retrieval action and explains the endpoint fallback behavior, but it does not disclose authentication needs, potential output size or truncation, or any operational constraints beyond the endpoint default.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose followed by a compact, scannable Args list. There is no filler, repetition of schema titles, or unnecessary prose.

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 tool with five parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description documents every parameter and the endpoint default behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required; the main remaining gap is usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in plain language. It provides defaults and max for tail, accepted formats for since, timestamp behavior, and endpoint fallback semantics, which is substantial added value beyond the bare schema.

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 operation as 'Get container logs,' which is a specific verb-resource pair, and the Args list makes the target container explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling log tools such as portainer_container_logs_grep or portainer_service_logs, so it does not fully satisfy sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like portainer_container_logs_grep, portainer_service_logs, or portainer_stack_logs_errors. The agent is left to infer selection purely from the tool name and the generic operation statement.

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