get_runtime_logs

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

Indicates it's a read operation (get logs) and non-destructive, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or authentication. With no annotations, more disclosure would be beneficial.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Describes when to use and basic behavior, but for 7 parameters and no output schema, lacks details on output format, pagination, or handling of optional parameters.

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 high (86%), and description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Following baseline 3 for high coverage, but direction parameter lacks description in schema and is not explained here.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'RUNTIME logs/events of a deployment', and a specific use case ('debug a deployment that built fine but misbehaves in production'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_build_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?

Directly states when to use (after build success, for runtime misbehavior), implicitly excluding build-time debugging. Does not explicitly name alternatives but context is clear.

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