portainer_stack_logs_errors

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

The description details the error patterns searched (HTTP 4xx/5xx, exceptions, panics, etc.) and notes logs are fetched from every running container with the stack prefix. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the absence of annotations is compensated by clear behavioral description.

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 with a clear opening sentence, a list of error patterns, and an Args section. It is front-loaded but contains minor redundancy in listing error pattern examples both in prose and bullet points.

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 tool's complexity and lack of schema descriptions, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Minor gaps, such as whether the tool stops on first error, do not hinder completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds full meaning for all three parameters: stack_name as prefix, tail with default and max, endpoint_id as optional. This exceeds 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 tool scans all running containers in a stack for errors, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling log tools by focusing on stack-wide error detection.

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 usage for stack error scanning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like portainer_container_logs_grep. No exclusions or contextual guidance is provided.

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