VPS_getProjectLogsV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that logs are aggregated from all services, recent, organized by service name with timestamps, and limited to 300 entries. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or whether logs are cleared, but the description is sufficient for a read-only log retrieval tool.

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, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence earns its place: definition, output details, use cases. No redundant or superfluous text.

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 adequately describes the return format (log entries, service name, timestamps, last 300). It covers the core what and why, but could mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, VM running) or whether logs are from Docker.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema; it does not explain the relationship between virtualMachineId and projectName or provide formatting details. Baseline 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 clearly states the action: 'Retrieves aggregated log entries from all services within a Docker Compose project.' It specifies the resource (Docker Compose project logs) and distinguishes from siblings like VPS_getProjectContainersV1 by focusing on logs rather than containers or contents.

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 states when to use: 'for debugging, monitoring application behavior, and troubleshooting issues across your entire project stack.' It provides clear context but does not specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools.

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