appcrane_get_deploy_log

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the scope (pre-container output) and the nature of errors covered. However, it does not mention response format (text/plain) or potential limitations like log truncation, but this is partially covered by the 'tail' parameter.

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?

Single well-structured paragraph. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then parameter alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers the core purpose, distinguishes from siblings, explains parameter options, and provides use-case guidance. Missing details on error handling (e.g., if both deployment_id and slug+env provided) but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool's description adds significant context: clarifies the relationship between deployment_id vs slug+env, explains the default for 'tail' (500), and states that stage is required when deployment_id is omitted. This goes beyond 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 reads deploy/build logs from pre-runtime stages (clone, npm install, docker build, health-validate), distinguishing it from sibling appcrane_get_logs which shows runtime logs. The verb 'Read' and resource 'deploy/build log' 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (fast deploy failures) versus alternatives (appcrane_get_logs for runtime), and how to specify the deployment via deployment_id or slug+env. Also references prerequisites (deployment_id from other tools).

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