portainer_service_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists parameters and their meanings; it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential large output, pagination, or any side effects. The phrase 'all its tasks, across nodes' adds some scope detail but insufficient behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated in one sentence, followed by a clean Args list with each parameter on its own line. No redundant information; every sentence provides value.

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 that an output schema exists (so return format is defined there), the description is nearly complete for a logs tool. It covers all parameters and their formats. Minor gaps include lack of mention about pagination or error behavior, but these are less critical given the output schema and simple nature of the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains each parameter: service_id accepts ID or name, tail has a default and max, since accepts multiple formats, timestamps is a boolean, and endpoint_id falls back to default. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool retrieves logs for a Swarm service, explicitly including all tasks across nodes. This distinguishes it from container or stack log tools, and the verb+resource+scope are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (for Swarm service logs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for not using it. Sibling tools like portainer_container_logs and portainer_stack_logs_errors are not referenced, so an agent must infer the appropriate choice from the scope alone.

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