VPS_getProjectLogsV1

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

The description discloses that it returns 'recent log output from each container, organized by service name with timestamps' and 'the last 300 log entries across all services', adding behavioral details beyond the schema. With no annotations provided, this adequately informs the agent of what to expect.

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 three sentences that first state the purpose, then describe the output, and finally list use cases. It is concise with no redundant information, earning the highest score.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the response format (log entries per service, timestamps, limit of 300 entries). The two parameters are well-documented in the schema. This is sufficient for a straightforward read tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions (100% coverage) for both parameters (virtualMachineId and projectName). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so the schema carries the burden; a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Retrieves aggregated log entries from all services within a Docker Compose project', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like VPS_getProjectContainersV1 and VPS_getProjectContentsV1 that deal with other aspects of a project.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for debugging, monitoring application behavior, and troubleshooting issues across your entire project stack', providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case guidance is strong.

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