get_logs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: `level` keeps entries at that level or above with stack traces, `search` is case-insensitive, and the result counts warnings/errors across the whole file. It omits ordering and truncation behavior when the file is larger than the requested tail.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how each filter narrows it. The parenthetical default-file note sits mid-description rather than up front, but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the filtering semantics are well covered. The remaining shortfall is the unexplained `lines` and `cluster` parameters in a six-parameter, zero-coverage schema.

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 must carry parameter meaning; it does so well for `file`, `level`, `search`, and `taskmanager_id`. However `lines` (tail length, default 200) and `cluster` are never explained anywhere, leaving two of six parameters ambiguous — a real gap at zero 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Tail of a Flink log') and precisely scopes it: JobManager by default, one TaskManager's when `taskmanager_id` is given. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `list_log_files`, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the selection logic between JobManager and TaskManager logs and points to `list_log_files` for picking a non-default file. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool (e.g. versus `job_exceptions` for exception triage), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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