heroku_get_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured vs. raw text). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly convey the core functionality and filtering options. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. While the schema covers inputs well, the description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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?

The description adds some value by hinting at filtering parameters ('dyno or source'), but with 100% schema description coverage, all parameters (appName, lines, dyno, source) are already well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get recent logs') and resource ('from a Heroku app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'heroku_get_app' or 'heroku_list_releases', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance by mentioning filtering options ('Can filter by dyno or source'), but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'heroku_get_app' for app details or 'heroku_list_releases' for release logs. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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