get_app_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'flexible filtering options' and the three usage scenarios, which gives some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format/log volume to expect in responses. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by three specific usage scenarios in a numbered list. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value: the first establishes the core function, and the three bullet points give actionable usage guidance. There's no wasted text or 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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context. However, for a tool that likely returns potentially complex log data, the description doesn't address response format, pagination, or data volume considerations. The completeness is minimal viable - adequate but with clear gaps in behavioral transparency that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering 'by dyno, process type, or source' which maps to three parameters, and implies the 'app' parameter through 'application logs.' However, it doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as 'View application logs with flexible filtering options' which specifies the verb (view) and resource (application logs). It distinguishes from siblings like get_app_info or ps_list by focusing specifically on logs rather than general app information or process status. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential log-related siblings that might not exist in this set.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'when you need to: 1) Monitor application activity in real-time, 2) Debug issues by viewing recent logs, 3) Filter logs by dyno, process type, or source.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, but the scenarios are sufficiently detailed for an agent to make appropriate decisions.

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