get_service_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that logs are returned and gives a line count, but lacks details on access requirements, real-time behavior, or error scenarios. Key behaviors like authentication needs or status when the service is not running are omitted.

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 three sentences. It is front-loaded with purpose and uses clear language. Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not detail the return format or structure. It mentions returning lines but not whether output is raw text or structured. In the context of many sibling tools, it lacks differentiation cues. Adequate for a simple log retrieval but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description's mention of 'last N lines' adds minimal value beyond the schema's default and max constraints. It does not elaborate on parameter format or constraints.

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 retrieves service container logs for debugging runtime errors. It specifies the resource (logs of a service container) and the purpose (debug runtime errors). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_build_logs or get_service_error.

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 advises using the tool to debug runtime errors, which is a useful usage hint. It does not provide exclusions or mention alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer when not to use it.

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