coolify_get_application_logs

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: configurable line count capped by COOLIFY_LOG_MAX_LINES, and that secrets are redacted. This goes beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. No wasted content.

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 simplicity, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It covers key behavioral details (line cap, redaction) but could mention return format since there is no output 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 100%, so parameters (application_uuid, lines) are fully described in the schema. The description's mention of 'configurable line count' adds minimal extra meaning, as the schema already documents the default and max.

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 'Get application logs', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes from sibling log tools by explicitly mentioning 'application' (vs database/service logs).

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: when you want application logs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_database_logs or get_service_logs, nor does it provide when-to-use vs alternative guidance.

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