get_top_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the useful tail-truncation behavior (text taken from the end) and the two log scopes, which is genuine context. It says nothing about permissions, error cases, or how the two log sources differ beyond the parameter hint, leaving some gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and then parameter semantics are itemized, which is efficient for a log tool. The ctx arg line is boilerplate that adds little, a minor bit of clutter but not a real problem.

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?

For a small read-only log-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, both modes, and the meaning of every parameter. It stops short of describing the sibling tool landscape, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: it explains node_path (TOP node path), work_item_index (omit for the node's own errors and warnings), and tail (max characters from the end). Only ctx is boilerplate, and no parameter is left undocumented.

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 and resource: retrieve cook logs for a TOP node, or the scheduler log of a single work item. The dual mode is made explicit. It doesn't name neighboring log/status tools, but the purpose itself is 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 hints at when to use each mode ('omit for the node's own errors and warnings'), which guides work_item_index usage. However, it never references alternatives like get_work_item_info, get_work_item_states, or get_failed_work_items, so routing between sibling log tools is left to inference.

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